ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY – Terrestrial Ecosystems 1/26/2007

DRAFT 43 -ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY – Terrestrial Ecosystems 1/26/2007

The ecological sustainability analysis for the Uwharrie National Forest (UWNF) Plan revision follows the outline and section numbering in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 (Land Management Planning Handbook Chapter 40 – Science and Sustainability). The primary focus of this analysis is on ecosystem diversity to develop plan components for a framework that provides characteristics of ecosystem diversity and contributes to the diversity of native plant and animal species (36 CFR 219.10 (b)). A complementary and necessary species-specific approach (FSM 1921.7) then focuses on evaluating if additional provisions are needed for specific federally listed species, species-of-concern, and species-of-interest (36 CFR 219.10 (b)(2)).

43.1 – Ecosystem Diversity Ecosystem diversity is defined as the variety and relative extent of ecosystem types including their composition, structure, and processes (36 CFR 219.16). NatureServe’s ecological systems (2004) were used as a starting point to define ecosystem types on the UWNF. Ecological systems are groups of plant associations or “plant communities of definite floristic composition, presenting a uniform physiognomy, and growing in uniform habitat conditions” (Flahault 1910) that occur in regions of similar physical conditions and biological potential. Sites within ecological systems may be characterized by geologic formation, landform, aspect, and other physical attributes that interact to create unique environments controlled by temperature, moisture, and fertility.

An environmental variable-based model was used to approximate and map the potential extent of the more common ecological systems or plant associations on a 622,000 acre area centered on the UWNF to better evaluate the site capability of the varied landscapes in and around the plan area (Appendix A). The existing extent of these systems was determined by intersecting map units from the environmental model with map units from the continuous inventory of stand conditions (CISC) database and evaluating how well the two classifications “fit”. Through a collaborative effort by botanists, ecologists, and silviculturists, CISC forest types were cross-walked with their equivalent ecological systems by comparing descriptions of the individual classifications (Table 1). Information from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program was used to map the extent of rare ecological systems. We identified the following 14 ecological systems that are roughly equivalent to The Nature Conservancy’s “conservation targets” (NatureServe 2004, TNC 2003).

• Xeric Oak Forest • Dry Oak-Hickory felsic Forest • Dry Oak-Hickory mafic Forest • Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory felsic Forest • Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory mafic Forest • Southern Piedmont Mesic Forest • Southeastern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodland • Shortleaf Pine-Oak Woodland • Succesional and planted Forests (Loblolly and Shortleaf pine)

DRAFT • Streamside Forest • Southern Piedmont Glade and Barrens • Southern Piedmont Mafic Hardpan Woodland • Piedmont Seepage Wetland • Southern Piedmont / Ridge and Valley Upland Depression Swamp

The following table describes the results of intersecting the map of potential ecological systems and existing forest types and cross-walking type descriptions. The first column lists the broader NatureServe ecological system name and the second column lists the corresponding names of potential ecological system map units, i.e. “potential vegetation” on the UWNF. The last column lists the rules used to map the corresponding existing ecological system based on the match between CISC and NatureServe types. For example, there are approximately 1,750 acres on the UWNF where oak dominated CISC forest types occur in the driest modeled environments, i.e, xeric oak. Map units where these two conditions intersect were labeled “Xeric Oak Forest” (see first table entry). However, the potential extent of Xeric Oak Forest as derived from environmental modeling is 2,900 acres indicating a departure from the potential vegetation composition on 1,050 acres and perhaps a restoration opportunity.

Table 1: Relationship between NatureServe’s ecological systems and potential and existing ecological systems on the UWNF ECOLOCICAL POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL EXISTING ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS SYSTEM SYSTEMS ON THE UWNF ON THE UWNF – cross-walk between Potential (NatureServe - from environmental modeling - Ecological Systems and CISC Forest Type (FT) 2004) (potential extent in acres) (existing extent in acres) Xeric Oak Forest (2,900 ac.) Xeric Oak potential intersecting with CISC FT 44,45,47,51-55,60 = (1,750 ac.) Dry Oak-Hickory-felsic Forest (19,200 Dry Oak-Hickory-felsic potential intersecting with CISC FT Southern ac.) 44,45,47,51-55,60 = (10,370 ac.) outside Streamside Forest Piedmont Dry Oak-Hickory-mafic Forest (2,200 ac.) Dry Oak-Hickory-mafic potential intersecting with CISC FT Dry Oak – (Pine) 44,45,47,51-55,60 = (1,300 ac.) outside Streamside Forest Forest Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory-felsic Forest Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory-felsic potential intersecting with CISC FT (9,600 ac.) 44,45,47,51-55,60 = (6,670 ac.) outside Streamside Forest Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory-mafic Forest (830 Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory-mafic potential intersecting with CISC ac.) FT 44,45,47,51-55,60 = (625 ac.) outside Streamside Forest Southern Southern Piedmont Mesic Forest (950 ac.) Southern Piedmont Mesic Forest potential intersecting with all Piedmont Mesic = (Mesic / Alluvial Forests plus Hardwood CISC FT but 12,13,16,21,31,32,33 = (320 ac.) outside Streamside Forest Slope Forest environmental models) Forest Southeastern Southeastern Interior Longleaf Pine CISC FT = 21 outside Streamside Forest Interior Longleaf Woodland (8,200 ac.) Pine Woodland Shortleaf Pine-Oak Woodland (28 ac.) Shortleaf Pine-Oak Woodland potential

Southern

Piedmont Glade UWNF Ecological Systems listed below were not derived from environmental modeling and Barrens Southern Piedmont Glade and Barrens NC Natural Heritage Program Community Element Occurrences (< 100 ac., 19 sites) 2006 ( < 100 ac., 19 sites) Southern Piedmont Mafic Southern Piedmont Mafic Hardpan NC Natural Heritage Program Community Element Occurrences Hardpan Woodland (30 ac., 9 sites) 2006 ( 30 ac., 9 sites) Woodland Piedmont Piedmont Seepage Wetland (200 ac., 50 NC Natural Heritage Program Community Element Occurrences Seepage Wetland sites) 2006 ( 200 ac., 50 sites) outside Streamside Forest Southern Southern Piedmont / Ridge and Valley NC Natural Heritage Program Community Element Occurrences Upland Depression Swamp (15 ac., 11 Piedmont / Ridge 2006 (15 acres, 11 sites) sites)

DRAFT and Valley Upland Depression Swamp Southern Piedmont Large Floodplain, Streamside Forest (7,000 ac.) Southern Streamside Forest (7,000 ac.) Piedmont Small One-hundred foot zone adjacent to Floodplain and perennial streams plus adjacent floodplain One-hundred foot zone adjacent to perennial streams plus adjacent / alluvial soils. Perennial streams derived floodplain / alluvial soils. Perennial streams derived from Riparian Forest, from 1:24,000 scale topographic maps plus 1:24,000 scale topographic maps plus hydrologically modeled Southern hydrologically modeled streams below 19 streams below 19 acre catchment area (ESRI 2002) Piedmont Dry acre catchment area (ESRI 2002) Oak – (Pine) Forests Cultivated Forest, Successional and planted Forest (acres are Successional Forest (20,525 ac.) (acres not included in above Semi-natural included in above types) types) Forest Loblolly Pine (11,335 ac.) = CISC FT 31, 13 Shortleaf Pine (9,200 ac.) CISC FT 32, 12, 33, 16 1/ See Appendix A for explanation of ecological modeling methods and results

In general, environmental modeling and geologic substrate facilitated the mapping of existing ecological systems on the UWNF by: 1. Separating oak-dominated CISC forest types 44 (Southern Red Oak -Yellow Pine – 1,043 ac.), 45 (Chestnut Oak-Scarlet Oak-Yellow Pine – 1,629 ac.), 47 (White Oak-Black Oak-Yellow Pine – 2,583 ac.), 51 (Post Oak-Black Oak – 14 ac.), 52 (Chestnut Oak – 716 ac.), 53 (White Oak-Red Oak-Hickory- 14,670 ac), 54 (White Oak – 292 ac.), 55 (Northern Red Oak – 155 ac.), and 60 (Chestnut Oak- Scarlet Oak – 308 ac.) into ecological systems based upon temperature, moisture, and fertility (geology) gradients, 2. Separating pine-dominated CISC forest types 12 (Shortleaf Pine), 13 (Loblolly Pine-Hardwood), 16 (Virginia pine-Oak), 31 (Loblolly Pine), 32 (Shortleaf Pine), and 33 (Virginia Pine) into Successional Forest ecological systems or Southern Piedmont Mesic Forest ecological systems, and 3. Identifying pine-dominated CISC forest types that could potentially support Oak, Oak-Hickory or Longleaf Pine ecological systems.

Information developed in the following sections is used to evaluate and interpret the status of ecological systems on the UWNF. Each section is summarized in a subsection titled “Evaluation”. Proposed plan components that provide for characteristics of ecosystem diversity that address these evaluations are listed in section 43.15.

43.11 – Spatial Scales for Ecosystem Diversity The spatial scales for considering ecosystem diversity on the UWNF were selected to address the administrative plan area and its role in the broader ecological context. Essentially we looked at ecological subsections from the National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units (USDA 1997) and at the landscape-level environmental model area for context and national forest roles in providing for ecosystem diversity. Ecological system characteristics on the UWNF were evaluated in detail to better understand opportunities and limitations for national forest lands to contribute to the sustainability of ecological systems.

DRAFT The UWNF is located within the Southern Appalachian Piedmont Ecological Section, a broad area over 42 million acres in size that lies between the Coastal Plain and Blue Ridge Mountains. The proclaimed boundary of the UWNF is within a portion of the Sand Hills Ecological Section, and two Ecological Subsections within the Piedmont: the Carolina Slate Belt and Southern Triassic Uplands (Figure 1). No land is managed within the Sand Hills Section, an area that is dominated by longleaf pine and pond pine ecological systems and very unlike the UWNF. The Carolina Slate Belt and Southern Triassic Uplands therefore provide the bounds on the area of analysis (36 CFR 219.16) to evaluate and understand the environmental context and opportunities and limitation for NFS lands to contribute to the diversity of native plant and animal communities.

The Carolina Slate Belt is approximately 5.8 million acres in size and extends from southern Virginia to eastern Georgia. In North Carolina, it covers approximately 2.8 million acres. This extensive subregion is comprised of irregular plains with relatively low relief (< 500 ft.) derived from quaternary or tertiary silty to clayey saprolite. Potential vegetation, at its broadest level, is described as White Oak-Red Oak-Hickory and Pine-Oak-Yellow Poplar (Keys 1996). The Southern Triassic Uplands, confined primarily to North Carolina, are approximately 1.1 million acres in size and extend from southern Virginia to northern South Carolina. This subregion is comprised of irregular plains with relatively low relief (< 300 ft.) derived from quaternary red silty sand to silty clay decomposition residuum and silty to clayey sandy saprolite. Potential vegetation is described as Southern Red Oak -White Oak-Red Oak-Hickory and Shortleaf Pine-Oak.

Figure 1. Ecological Subregions in and adjacent to the Uwharrie National Forest in NC

DRAFT The total area within the Carolina Slate Belt and Southern Triassic Uplands is approximately 6.9 million acres or about 16% of the Southern Appalachian Piedmont. Between 1982 and 1992, the percent of area in forests in the Southern Appalachian Piedmont declined by 1.12% and is projected to decline by an additional 7.95% from 1992 to 2020 (USDA 2002). This is the largest projected decline in the entire 13 state Southern Region where about 50% of the land is forested and where it is forecasted that 12 million forest acres will be lost to developed uses between 1992 and 2020. In areas where forest cover is relatively high but highly fragmented, such as the UWNF, it is anticipated that even marginal changes in forest cover may have disproportionate impacts on the connectivity of forested habitats (USDA 2002). The UWNF is approximately 51,000 acres in size and just a fraction of both the total extent of the Carolina Slate Belt and Southern Triassic Uplands (UWNF is 0.7% of this area) and the extent of these Subregions in North Carolina (UWNF is 1.3% of this area). Total federal land within the Carolina Slate Belt and Southern Triassic Uplands includes the UWNF, Sumter NF, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, and Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge and is less than 200,000 acres or less than 3% of this area.

The environmental model was used to approximate the extent of potential ecological systems on a 622,000 acre area bounded by the extent of 16 - USGS 7 ½ minute quadrangles centered on the UWNF (Figure 2). This area includes both public and private lands and covers 497,440 acres within Montgomery, Randolph, Davidson, and Stanly counties (Table 2). The potential extent of ecological systems within this 4- county area on private lands was approximated using results of modeling (Appendix A) and the proportion of total counties identified as forested (Brown 2003) to evaluate the opportunities and limitations for NFS lands to contribute to the sustainability of ecological systems in the plan area (Table 2).

The UWNF includes about 10% of the total land but roughly 15% of the forested land within this analysis area. Similarly, the potential extent of at least 4 ecological systems is disproportionately greater on the UWNF, i.e. although the UWNF is only 15% of the total forest area, it could support nearly 30% of Xeric Oak Forests, 21% of Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory felsic Forests, 19% of Dry Oak-Hickory felsic Forests, and 18% of all Dry Oak-Hickory mafic Forests in the 4-County modeled area. Potential for several ecological systems are also underrepresented on the UWNF including Southern Piedmont Mesic Forests, Streamside Forests, and Longleaf Pine Woodlands (Table 2).

DRAFT Figure 2. Area of the environmental variable-based model (hatched) used to map potential ecological systems centered on the UWNF (shaded) and Montgomery, Davidson, Randolph, and Stanley Counties

Table 2. Potential extent of ecological systems in the 4-County modeled area. UWNF Total Ecological UWNF % of Modeled Modeled Area by County System Modeled Area David. Mont. Rand. Stan. (acres) Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Total area 51,000 10.3% 497,440 41,720 239,130 159,320 57,270 % forest 1/ 98% 67% 56% 78% 62% 43% Xeric Oak Forest 2,900 29.9% 9,685 1,925 1,710 5,130 920 D.Oak-Hickory felsic 19,200 18.7% 102,755 10,735 34,030 51,820 6,170 D.Oak-Hickory mafic 2,200 18.0% 12,220 890 3,660 1,970 5,700 DM.Oak-Hickory fels 9,600 20.7% 46,280 4,180 23,380 16,520 2,200 DM.Oak-Hickory maf 830 16.6% 4,985 360 1,635 700 2,290 S.Piedmont Mesic 950 6.5% 14,530 580 9,550 2,280 2,120 Longleaf Pine Woodld. 7,600 10.4% 73,321 0 73,141 180 0 Streamside Forest 7,000 9.9% 70,405 4,690 39,375 21,150 5,190 Total Forested 49,980 15.0% 333,289 23,363 186,521 98,778 24,626 1/ Private land figures exclude forests on the UWNF

The proportion of forested land in the 4-county modeled area (67% forested) surrounding the UWNF is higher than the 52% estimated in 2002 for the North Carolina Piedmont (USFS Forest Survey, Brown 2003). Montgomery County, where most of the UWNF is located, is about 80% forested, more than any other county in the 35-county Piedmont of North Carolina. The extent of forest land in the 4-county area during the past 20 years has been relatively static although increasing about 19% in Davidson County and

DRAFT decreasing by nearly the same amount in Stanly County (Brown 1990, 2003, Hutchins 1984).

Evaluation Because of its small size relative to the Carolina Slate Belt and Southern Triassic Uplands, it would appear that the UWNF has very limited opportunities to contribute to the sustainability of ecological systems and the species they support. However, ecological systems on private lands have greatly departed from their natural range of variation due to urban development, farming, and short-rotation timber production within these Subregions and future trends in urbanization and loss of forest habitat is anticipated. Still, unless the UWNF provides the majority of known occurrences of specific rare ecosystems or rare species throughout this subregion, its contribution to ecological sustainability will probably always be limited by its size and fragmented condition (see section 43.14a).

At a more local level focused on the plan area, the UWNF could contribute greatly to sustaining ecological systems and the species they support. This contribution is due primarily to the diversity of habitats available on the UWNF, the relative amount of intact forests that occur on mafic rock that support a variety of locally rare species, and the potential for restoration of rare ecological systems such as Southeastern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodlands. Continued loss of forest acres to developed uses on private lands is likely to make the UWNF’s conservation contribution even more meaningful in the not too distant future.

43.12a – Characteristics of Ecosystem Diversity In order to evaluate ecological sustainability, we must identify the ecological processes, ecosystem composition, and structural characteristics that are important to the long term persistence of ecological systems on the UWNF. Three general characteristics are evaluated for each ecological system: (1) the abundance of each ecological system, i.e., the area supporting characteristic dominant vegetation of the system on ecologically appropriate sites, (2) forest density expressed in terms of percent overstory closure and size of canopy gaps, and (3) fire regime and its role in maintaining subcanopy and understory species composition and structure. Two additional characteristics are evaluated for specific ecological systems where they are important factors affecting composition and processes: (1) the abundance of non-native invasive species, and (2) hydrologic regime. All of these characteristics are measurable, have been significantly influenced by past management actions, and are subject to management control in the future. Therefore, they are important factors to consider when establishing (or evaluating) plan components. To quantify the status of these characteristics, the following indicators have been developed and specifically applied to each of the 14 ecological systems (Appendix B) where they are appropriate:

DRAFT Key Factor Indicator Species The percent of NFS acreage dominated by species characteristic of the ecological system Landscape on ecologically appropriate sites. This indicator is used to evaluate the abundance and Composition distribution of the system on the landscape, i.e., the proportion of the total acreage dominated by plant communities and species composition characteristic of ecological systems best adapted to the site, regardless of their successional stage. Species The percent of NFS acreage for a given ecological systems with less than 10% non-native Composition invasives species (NNIS) cover. This indicator is used to evaluate the degree of competition from non-native species and their effect on the long-term persistence of native species best adapted to the site. Canopy The percent of NFS acreage at the desired canopy closure for a given ecological system Structure approximated by the number of acres thinned or having basal area reduced through natural disturbance within the last decade. This indicator is used to evaluate the proportion of forests that have the structure, i.e., canopy closure that facilitates the development and maintenance of species characteristic of the system Canopy The percent of NFS acreage in canopy gaps of the appropriate size for a given ecological Structure system. This indicator is used to evaluate the proportion of the forest with habitat conditions that favor light-loving species and natural regeneration of tree species characteristic of the type. Fire The percent of NFS acreage prescribed burned on multiple occasions within the last 15, Regime 20, or 30 years (time period specific to system) under appropriate conditions for a given ecological system. This indicator is used to evaluate the condition of subcanopy and understory tree, shrub, herb, and grass species and the role of disturbance regimes that allow periodic perturbations to maintain canopy gaps and thin midcanopy trees to favor species best adapted to the site. Hydrologic The percent of NFS acreage within a given ecological system with unaltered natural Regime hydrology (undrained) . This indicator is used to evaluate the status of wetland systems, i.e., their ability to persist and provide conditions for wetland dependent species.

For each ecological system, benchmarks were developed for each appropriate indicator based on proportions of the optimal extent of the system on the landscape. Optimal extent is defined as the total potential acres that could be occupied by the ecological system. Four qualitative categories were used to rate each indicator: “Very Good”, “Good”, “Fair” and “Poor”. An additional indicator rates the combined condition of each key factor on the same site and is used to evaluate departure from overall reference condition (see section 43.14.2). The qualitative categories are defined as follows:

• Very Good: The key factor (characteristic) is functioning at an ecologically desirable status, i.e., is self-maintaining and requires little management action. • Good: The key factor if functioning within its natural range of variation and may require some management action. • Fair: The key factor lies outside of its natural range of variation and requires management action. If unchecked, the ecological system will be vulnerable to degradation. • Poor: Allowing the key factor to remain in this condition for an extended period of time may make ecological system restoration or preventing species loss impractical or not economically feasible.

Category percentages vary by potential abundance (% of national forest acreage) of the ecological system (Table 3) on the UWNF. The benchmarks provide an important

DRAFT context to evaluate the current and desired conditions within each ecological system and can be used for monitoring progress related to the key factors. However, they may not necessarily be used as the desired condition itself. Given the climatic, cultural, and ecological changes that have occurred over time, it might not be possible to achieve “optimal” conditions.

Table 3. Values used to calculate benchmarks representing “very good”, “good”, “fair”, and “poor” indicator condition. Percentages vary by potential abundance (% of national forest acreage) of an ecological system. Benchmarks are higher for indicators in rarer ecological systems, and lower for indicators in more common ecological systems. Benchmarks are also adjusted higher by 10-30% for the combined indicator used to evaluate departure from overall reference condition (not shown in this table – see section 43.12b). Percent of “Optimal” extent of ecological systems

Percent of national forest “Very Good” “Good” “Fair” “Poor” acreage potentially occupied by the ecological system

> 10% > 75% 55%-75% 30%-55% < 30%

1% to 10% > 85% 70%-85% 50%-70% > 50%

< 1% > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% > 70%

These benchmarks are based on expert opinion and standard percentages consistent with R8 guidelines. They should be viewed as coarse estimates, not hard thresholds, but as planning tools that are useful for assessing ecological outcomes and for evaluating management performance during monitoring of plan implementation.

43.13 – Range of Variation The range of variation under historic disturbance regimes is also a necessary context to evaluate current and desired conditions on the UWNF. Following the approach described in recent Forest Service Handbook (FSH) direction, natural variation of ecosystem characteristics (section 43.12a) can be evaluated in the context of a reference period having relative climatic and ecological stability, i.e. the period of indigenous settlement, but prior to the influence of European-American settlement, or “pre-settlement” period (FSH 1909.12.43.13). These selected ecosystem characteristics then serve as descriptors of habitats for species selected for consideration during planning. It is difficult to accurately determine the historic range of variation in disturbance regimes in the ecologically diverse Eastern United States. This is especially true in the highly fragmented land ownership of the Southern Piedmont where hurricanes, tornadoes, fire, insects, drought, and disease interacting with a 12,000+ year history of human disturbance (pre-settlement Indian influences, clearing for European settlements, historic agricultural use, and current urban sprawl) has masked reference period vegetation patterns. Furthermore, unlike the Western United States, few intact ecological systems at or near pre-European settlement conditions still exist in the Southern Piedmont to define and study a reference condition. However, we can approximate the abundance and distribution of ecological systems for a reference period prior to European settlement through the use of environmental modeling based on remnant vegetation and site features. We can also estimate other important ecological characteristics such as canopy

DRAFT closure and composition by evaluating current habitat requirements for plant communities or species in decline due to habitat loss or degradation. Finally, we can evaluate the disturbance processes that affect or have affected ecological systems in the Southern Piedmont and use ecological understanding of how the structure and composition of vegetation on the UWNF have been influenced by these disturbance regimes.

Disturbance processes

Hurricanes and Tornadoes: Over the 107-year period 1871 through 1977, a total of 651 tropical cyclones (tropical storms and hurricanes) of various intensities have been recorded over the Atlantic cyclone basin (NOAA 1978). A total of 257 or about 40 percent have crossed or passed immediately adjacent to the United States mainland. About 140 of these were of hurricane strength and 21 occurred in North Carolina. Eight of the hurricanes in North Carolina during this period were considered major hurricanes (≥ category 3) “capable of blowing large trees down” and therefore capable of altering the composition and structure of forests. Only Florida had a greater number (50) of hurricanes than North Carolina during this same period and 21 of these were considered major.

During the past 28 years (1978-2005) 13 additional hurricanes have been recorded in North Carolina. Of the total 33 hurricanes recorded in North Carolina from 1871 to 2005, 11 (33 percent) have passed within 100 miles of the UWNF or were recorded as producing damage in the surrounding 4 county area (Table 4). However, only three of these – Hazel, Hugo, and Fran were major hurricanes. By comparison, 7 major hurricanes have occurred on the North Carolina coast during this 134 year period where hurricane frequency averaged 1 per 6 years versus 1 per 20 years for the UWNF area. The year 2005 was the most active year on record for hurricanes in the Atlantic cyclone basin and this trend in heightened activity is expected to continue for at least a decade.

Table 4. Hurricanes recorded in North Carolina from 1871 to 2005 Hurricane Category 1/ Date Vicinity of the Number or Name Uwharrie NF 2 3 August 18, 1889 No – on coast 6 1 September 24, 1889 Yes – directly over 4 3 September 18, 1906 No – in mountains 3 1 July 11, 1901 No – on coast 2 1 July 31, 1908 No – on coast 13 2 September 16, 1933 No – on coast 2 1 September 4, 1913 Yes – directly over 3 1 September 23, 1920 Yes – directly over 13 1 September 18, 1926 No – on coast 3 1 August 1, 1944 Yes < 100 miles E 7 3 September 14, 1944 No – on coast 1 1 August 24, 1949 No – on coast Barbara 1 August 13, 1953 No – on coast Carol 3 August 31, 1954 No – on coast Hazel 4 October 15, 1954 Yes < 100 miles E Connie 3 August 12, 1955 No – on coast

DRAFT

Diana 1 August 17, 1955 No - > 100 miles E Ione 3 September 19, 1955 No – on coast Donna 4 September 11, 1960 No – on coast Ginger 1 September 9, 1971 Yes – < 100 miles E Diana 1 September 9, 1984 No – on coast Gloria 2 September 26, 1985 No – on coast Charley 1 August 18, 1986 No – on coast Hugo 4 September 22, 1989 Yes > 100 miles SE Bertha 2 July 13, 1996 Yes – but minor Fran 3 September 6, 1996 Yes < 60 miles E Bonnie 3 August 26, 1998 No – on coast Dennis 1 August 4, 1999 Yes – but minor Floyd 2 September 16, 1999 Yes – but minor Isabel 2 September 18, 2003 No – on coast Charley 1 August 14, 2004 No – on coast Cindy 1 July 5, 2005 No – in mountains Ophelia 1 September 15, 2005 No – on coast 1/ Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale: Category 1 = Winds of 74 to 95 miles per hour – damage primarily to shrubbery, trees, foliage, Category 2 = Winds of 96 to 110 miles per hour – considerable damage to shrubbery and tree foliage; some trees blown down, Category 3 = 110-130 miles per hour, Category 4 = 131-155 miles per hour, Category 5 = 156+ miles per hour.

Moderate damage (partial tree blowdown up to 10 acres in size) on the UWNF occurred from Hazel, Hugo, and Fran but was not widespread. The greatest damage was from Hugo (Carter 2006).

Although hurricane frequency declines from coastlines to the interior Piedmont, tornadoes are more frequent in interior areas. Nearly 10 violent tornadoes per year have occurred over the last 100 years (Grazulis 1984; Martin and Boyce 1993) in the Piedmont region. Since 1950, 39 tornadoes (or about 4 per decade) have been recorded in the four counties surrounding the UWNF. Most of these were considered weak tornadoes (F0-F1) with winds less than 112 mph, but 7 (nearly one per decade) were strong tornadoes (F2) with winds exceeding 112 mph. Damage on the UWNF has likely been greater from tornadoes, in the long term, than from hurricanes; damage to stands nearly 100 acres in size have been documented on the UWNF (Carter 2006) although this damage resulted in only partial loss of the tree overstory.

Insects: The Southern Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann) is the most destructive pine bark beetle in the southern United States (USDA Handbook #575). They are indigenous, occurring in small numbers, but populations are cyclic and occasionally increase dramatically to epidemic proportions over wide areas. Pine trees are killed singly, in small groups, or in large numbers over hundreds of acres. An epidemic cycle may last 3-5 years. Environmental factors and/or natural predators will eventually cause a population collapse, ending the epidemic.

Infestations can develop into epidemic levels when pine forests are stressed by crowded growing conditions or drought, trees are damaged from ice or wind, or when stands are considered biologically mature. Once beetle populations develop in weakened trees, they may spread to healthy trees that normally would resist attack. When beetle populations become large, they can successfully attack healthy, vigorous trees, resulting in

DRAFT widespread mortality. Natural enemies, including diseases, parasites, and predators, can help maintain beetle populations at normal levels; however, these forces seem to have relatively little effect during epidemics. Most major outbreaks last from three to five years and occur in irregular cycles of about seven to 10 years.

Southern Pine Beetle activity on the UWNF has largely been confined to loblolly and shortleaf pine stands, but could impact all pine species in pine and mixed pine and hardwood forest types if populations increase to epidemic proportions. Southern pine beetle infestations can cause a shift in community composition in mixed pine-hardwood or pine-oak stands and a shift in forest-wide age-class distribution in pine dominated stands. Shade tolerant species such as blackgum, red maple, sourwood, and dogwood may increase in abundance in pine-hardwood stands and oaks are likely to become more dominant in mixed pine-oak stands. Pine dominated forests may experience a 30+% increase in seedling-aged stands (USDA 2003).

The most recent Southern Pine Beetle outbreaks on the UWNF occurred in the mid 1990’s and in 2002. During the first infestation suppression actions were taken on approximately 120 acres over a 5-year period from 1992 to 1996. Monitoring by the Forest Service-Forest Health Protection Unit indicated low but increasing SPB populations from 2001 and 2002. The North Carolina Department of Forest Resources predicted the North Carolina piedmont would have an increasing population trend in 2003, and possibly in 2004. In 2003, up to 5,000 acres of Southern Pine Beetle suppression treatments were authorized to suppress infestation on the UWNF.

Lightning-Caused Fires: Lightning storms, which can lead to fire ignition in forests, are more frequent in the Southeast than in any other part of the United States. Historic records indicate an average lightning-caused wildfire interval of 2-3 (Cowell 1992) or 3-5 (Hughes 1966) years in the Southeast Coastal Plain where fire compartments are large and lightning is frequent. A fire compartment is defined as an element of the landscape with continuous fuel and no natural firebreaks, such that an ignition in one part would be likely to burn the whole (Frost 1998). Fire danger may remain high in the Coastal Plain even when heavy rain is associated with lightning storms because of the drying effects in the commonly open-canopied pine savannas and their associated sandy and therefore droughty soils (Juras 1997). In the Piedmont, the landscape is more frequently dissected by drainages that create fire compartments that may be too small to allow fires to burn large areas as frequently as they do in the Coastal Plain. Furthermore, fire danger in the more closed canopied forests of the Piedmont decreases as vegetation “greens up” during the summer season when lightning storm frequencies are at their maximum.

We might conclude that lightning–caused fires, based on their lack of extensive documentation in the Piedmont, may have played an infrequent role in changing the composition and structure of terrestrial ecological systems on the UWNF just prior to European settlement. However, this does not explain the persistence of longleaf pine woodlands or a flora more adapted to open, prairie-like conditions that currently exist only on managed rights-of-way (roadsides, field margins, railway embankments, and power lines) on the UWNF. Some of these species are not widespread outside the

DRAFT Piedmont, and a few, such Schweintiz’s Sunflower, are restricted to the region (Barden 2002). The persistence of these species and of longleaf pine woodlands is evidence that presettlement conditions on the UWNF included more open landscapes than we see today.

American Indian-Caused Fire: There has been much debate on causes and effects of fire in the presettlement Piedmont (Juras 1997). However, the preponderance of anecdotal (Stewart 1963, Williams 1992), archeological (Dobyns 1966, 1983; Jacobs 1974), ecological (Delcourt and Delcourt 1997, 1998; Hamel and Buckner 1998), and meteorological evidence supports the conclusion that fire was a widespread occurrence in the pre-European landscape. Furthermore, more recent studies of “fire signatures” in Antarctic ice-cores indicate almost a 40% reduction in biomass burning emissions from about 1000 A.D. to 1700 A.D. and that from 1500 to 1700 A.D., regional human population variations are the most likely cause of these reduced emissions (Ferretti et.al. 2005). This is the time period when Native American populations severely declined as a result of Old World diseases brought by Europeans explorers.

It is likely that many of the Piedmont ecological systems developed under a regime of Native American-caused fires over a period of thousands of years. Native Americans have lived in the Piedmont region for 12,000 years and they burned the forest to improve hunting, to facilitate travel, and, for 1500 years before European settlement, to clear fields for agriculture (Merrell 1989). The wealth of independent historical reports of large prairie-like openings suggests that they were an important component of the landscape in the Carolina Piedmont region and that these “prairies” were created or at least maintained by Native Americans using fire (Barden 1997, 2002).

From 1540 to 1750, European explorers and traders in the Piedmont region of North and South Carolina reported many prairie-like openings they called “prairies,” “savannas,” “plains,” or “old fields,” ranging in size up to 40 km across. Historical and meteorological evidence suggests that these prairies were primarily the products of Native American burning and agriculture. There are more than a dozen historical accounts beginning with Hernando DeSoto’s 1540 expedition describing similar open conditions across the presettlement Piedmont (Barden 1997). More specific to the UWNF, these historical accounts include: 1) John Lederer, who in 1670 traveled from the James River in Virginia, to the Charlotte, North Carolina area, reported before reaching the Charlotte area that “The country here, by industry of these Indians, is very open, and clear of wood” and that the forests “where inhabited by Indians .. lay open in spacious plains” (Rostlund 1957). He included a map in the record of his travels that shows a very large area of the Piedmont east of the Appalachians labeled “savanae.” A rough approximation of the area traversed by early Piedmont explorers indicates that Lederer likely traveled through the southern portion of the present day UWNF in Montgomery county (Juras 1997). 2) John Lawson in 1701 traveled from Charleston South Carolina to the Piedmont near Charlotte, NC, and then northeast to the Pamlico Sound. He documents a dozen references to “large savannas” and “the woods being newly burnt and on

DRAFT fire in many places.” Near Charlotte he observed abandoned croplands that had become “spread with grass and strawberry vines.” Near Salisbury, NC, which is less than 50 miles west of the UWNF he journeyed “about 25 miles over pleasant savanna ground, high and dry, having very few trees upon it, and those standing at a great distance apart”. A rough approximation of areas traversed by Piedmont explorers indicates that Lawson likely traveled through the present day UWNF near Asheboro and Troy in Montgomery, Randolph, and Stanley counties (Juras 1997).

Further evidence of the importance of Indian-caused fire may come from historical observation of actual fires. Most of these observations were made during the dormant season (Lawson 1701, Catesby 1720, and Byrd 1728) when lightning-caused fires are extremely uncommon. However, because early explorers primarily traveled along established trails through regions inhabited by Native Americans and probably extensively cultivated, their observations may give a false impression and exaggerate the importance of fires and frequency of openings in the broader landscape.

The documented presence of bison in the early historic record is also given as evidence of significant Indian alteration of the forest ecosystems in the Southeast; a large-scale program of burning by Indians converting large tract of forests to grasslands, thereby providing habitat for this grazing species (Rostlund, 1957, 1960). An inspection of the archaeological and historic record, however, does not support this interpretation (Bass 2002). Of the thousands of archaeological sites representing the Indian occupation for the Southeast and dating from the late historic period to at least 8,000 B.C. that have been excavated, only one bison specimen is attributable to this period and it was a bison horn covered in copper and undoubtedly a ceremonial object (Bass 2002).

Still, it is likely that the historical Carolina Piedmont had some prairies which were open medium to large-size gaps among the mixed oak forests we see today. These prairies were able to establish where abundant rainfall would otherwise lead to forest because of droughty soil and frequent fire (Barden 2002). It is also likely that extensive clearings occurred along productive bottomlands and alluvial terraces following the wide use of maize as a staple crop during the period of maximum cultivation in the Mississippian Period (1,200 to 500 years B.P). In this period, there was extensive clearing for cropland and large settlements were created whose influence included the harvest of wood for fuel and building materials in peripheral areas (Delcourt et al. 1993). During this period, Indians used fires to annually burn cereal grasses, to burn basket grasses and nut trees every 3 years, and the grassy savanna hunting areas annually (Pyne 1997).

Williams (1992) estimated that the cleared land needed to support a person before European settlement ranged from about 2 acres to 30 to 40 acres for all cleared and burned land. Although Indian population levels prior to European settlement are still debated (Snedeker 2006), assuming that 6 million Indians were part of the eastern woodland culture, and each person represented 10 to 20 burned acres, then 60 million to 120 million acres would have been affected by clearing and burning (Williams 1992). This is about 22 to 44 percent of the cropland acreage farmed in the 31 Eastern States in

DRAFT 1990. Although these exact figures can be refuted (Snedeker 2006), they were presented by Williams (1992) to reflect the importance of Native American impacts on the landscape through the use of fire.

Regardless of the role of Indian-caused fire in the Piedmont, Frost (1998) makes the case that fire-adapted and fire-dependent species in the U.S. have evolved over a much longer period of time than humans have occupied North America. Therefore, lightening would have been responsible for most fires historically and for the fire adapted species we see today. As Frost (1998) explains: “Since any dependency on fire must involve evolutionary time, it seems unlikely that any rare species in the U.S. were dependent upon Native American burning. Native Americans have occupied North America only since the last glaciation – a relatively short time in evolutionary terms. The remarkable adaptations of extreme frequent-fire species like longleaf pine and Venus’s flytrap are unlikely to have appeared in the 10,000 years since the end of the Wisconsin glaciation, and would have taken hundreds of thousands of years to evolve during previous interglacial periods….” however “The relative importance of Native American fires should be expected to increase in topographically complex areas where fire compartments are smaller, and in regions with infrequent lightning ignitions”.

Although the adaptations of individual species are not likely the result of Native American burning, anthropogenic fire is very likely responsible for the sorting of species distributions and development of the plant communities (i.e. ecological systems) and distributions we know today. It is this distribution of communities that we address in this analysis for conservation planning, not only the adaptations of individual species.

As a result of Old World diseases brought by Europeans explorers, during the 16th and 17th Centuries, Native American populations severely declined. The Piedmont became “the object of emigration” in the mid-1700’s as “the extent and fertility of the beautiful prairies became known” (Foote 1846). When these European settlers moved into the Piedmont, they settled the open areas first because they did not have to clear the land of trees and converted the prairies to fields and pastures. By the 1800’s the Piedmont prairie community, including the elk, had disappeared from the Carolina landscape (Barden 1997).

Historic Fire Frequency on the UWNF: Frost (1998) developed a map of the United States that represents fire frequency in the most fire-exposed parts of each landscape during the era of European settlement (a window ranging from around 1565 to around 1890) using a synthesis of physiographic factors such as topography and land surface form, along with fire compartment size, historical vegetation records, fire frequency indicator species, lightning ignition data, and remnant natural vegetation. Native American burning was included in the estimate. The fire return interval in the Piedmont is estimated between 7-12 years for the most fire-exposed parts of the landscape, especially flats, dry uplands, and south slopes. Portions of the land within this area are naturally protected from fire such as wet areas, sparsely vegetated areas with insufficient fuels to carry fire, and fire-sheltered sites such as north-facing slopes, coves, ravines, steep-sided stream valleys.

DRAFT

The fire return interval is more likely at the low end of Frost’s Piedmont range for portions of the UWNF south of Lovejoy because fire compartments are larger due to more rolling topography and smaller streams and because of its proximity to the Sandhills Section where Frost estimates a higher fire frequency of 4-6 years. Fire compartments are smaller outside of this area because they are restricted by the Uwharrie Mountains, and other mountains such as Morris Mountain, Walker Mountain, and the Birkheads.

Evaluation Hurricanes and tornadoes have and will continue to impact forests on the UWNF and result in shifts in species composition and stand structure. These periodic disturbances, unlike in areas of the Southeastern Coastal Plain, are not likely to result in widespread alteration of ecological systems or loss of the species they support because major storm incidence declines from coastlines to the interior Piedmont. Widespread damage would be even less likely in portions of ecological systems on the UWNF where composition, structure, and ecological processes are ranked as being in “good” to “very good” ecological condition. Forests in these conditions are more resilient than forests whose ecological characteristics are outside the natural range of variation. However, few acres have been ranked in these categories on the UWNF (Appendix B); therefore, to reduce risks to biological diversity, plan components should be developed that improve the current ecological condition of forest composition and structure.

Similarly, Southern Pine Beetle outbreaks have and will periodically cause damage to trees and result in shifts in species composition and stand structure on the UWNF. These outbreaks have the potential to develop into epidemic levels that could result in extensive damage to pines. Plan components should be developed that emphasize reducing overcrowded conditions in pine stands, managing for species best adapted to the site, and continuing the suppression of Southern Pine Beetle infestations using Integrated Pest Management practices.

The influence of fire on the composition and structure of ecological systems on the UWNF has probably been greater than from any other source of disturbance. The extent of species and plant communities adapted to fire has been significantly reduced on the UWNF, and flora more adapted to open, prairie-like conditions currently exists only on managed rights-of-way. Plan components should be developed to emphasize reintroducing fire on most landscapes on the UWNF using fire return intervals appropriate to the ecological system, and the restoration of plant communities that are fire-adapted such as Southeastern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodlands.

43.14 – Current Condition and Trend of Ecosystem Characteristics and Status of Ecosystem Diversity

In this section current condition of the selected ecosystem diversity characteristics (overstory composition, canopy structure, and subcanopy / structure and composition) are described and evaluated. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine:

DRAFT 1. The parts of the system that are functioning and will likely continue to function in a way that contributes to ecosystem resiliency and diversity over time. 2. Those parts that may need adjustment through future management actions.

The current condition of ecosystem characteristics for each ecological system is evaluated in Appendix B. along with a full description of each ecological system.

Current Condition and Trend in Forest type Composition Approximately two-thirds of the 51,000 acre UWNF is dominated by pine or pine- hardwood and about one-third is dominated by hardwood (Continuous Inventory of Stand Condition database - CISC) (Table 5). Loblolly pine and shortleaf pine are the most common pines; chestnut oak, white oak, and southern red oak are the most common hardwoods. There are 22 forest types on the UWNF identified in CISC. The most extensive forest types are white oak- red oak-hickory and loblolly pine and together they cover one-half of the UWNF. Other common types include (in order of decreasing importance): shortleaf pine, white oak-black oak-yellow pine, shortleaf pine-oak, longleaf pine, and chestnut oak-scarlet oak-yellow pine. About 1000 acres are non-forested openings or have not been inventoried to determine forest type.

Forests on the UWNF are young (< 100 years in age) but mostly older than forests on the surrounding private land. Approximately one-third of the UWNF forests are 40 years or less in age and about one-third are greater than 80 years in age (Table 5; Figure 3); the average age (weighted by area) is 66 years. Hardwood dominated forest types are generally older than mixed pine-hardwood or pine dominated forest types. Hardwoods average 88 years in age, mixed pine-hardwood average 82 years, while pine averages only 44 years in age. The most extensive older stands are mapped as white oak-red oak- hickory and they represent about 10% of the land base.

Table 5. Current Forest Composition and Age Class Distribution on the Uwharrie National Forest within all management types. Forest Type /age class Total 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 90-100 100+ Longleaf Pine 2,241 429 144 47 596 70 0 17 45 123 423 127 Loblolly Pine 12,057 185 2,634 1,990 3,396 1,734 261 254 235 995 77 0 Shortleaf Pine 7,903 517 1,627 1,057 285 44 70 253 1,331 693 854 553 Virginia Pine 303 0 71 0 10 0 17 0 151 55 0 0 Virginia Pine-Oak 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 29 Shortleaf Pine-Oak 2,224 0 205 91 237 0 17 50 91 317 113 581

Loblolly Pine-Hardwood 712 0 0 16 446 166 0 0 12 0 12 0 Southern Red Oak-Yellow Pine 1,043 0 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 326 80 374 Chestnut Oak-Scarlet Oak-Yellow Pine 1,629 0 0 45 174 0 0 0 243 365 76 654

Bottomland Hwoods-Yellow Pine 535 0 0 5 234 0 0 39 0 78 132 47 White Oak-Black Oak-Yellow Pine 2,583 0 176 31 43 0 0 96 188 533 578 530 Post Oak-Black Oak 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Chestnut Oak-Scarlet Oak 308 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 308 Chestnut Oak 716 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 707 White Oak-Red Oak-Hickory 14,670 236 660 1,018 684 33 48 331 791 2,644 1,348 5,241

DRAFT

White Oak 292 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 251 Northern Red Oak 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 75 0 0 Yellow Poplar-White Oak-Red Oak 986 0 49 5 169 0 0 125 28 266 71 151 Laurel Oak-Willow Oak 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 Yellow Poplar 53 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sweet Gum-Yellow Poplar 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 16 0 35 22

Elm-Ash-Sugarberry 18 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 not classified 990 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overall, the ageclass distribution of forests on the UWNF is “U-shaped” (Figure 3), i.e., average-aged stands (age 50-70) are underrepresented while younger and older stands are over-represented. The large number of stands less than 50 years in age and narrow range of average-aged stands is likely due to the period when active forest management began on the UWNF in 1961 – the year the Forest was established. Since this time, about 8,200 acres of loblolly pine and about 3,500 acres of shortleaf pine have been planted and/or young stands have been acquired (Tables 5-6). This trend, however, has decreased greatly in the past decade and is consistent with nationwide trends that resulted from a move away from intensive timber production on national forests to a more integrated resource approach to managing the landscape (Uwharrie National Forest – A Strategic View, 2005).

Figure 3. Stand age by Forest Type group within all management types

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000 ac.

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 0-10 11-20 har dwood 21-30 31-40 41-50 mi x ed 51-60 60-70 71-80 pi ne 81-90 91-100 age 100+

Along with the downward trend in timber harvest on the UWNF is a reduction of acres managed for loblolly pine or shortleaf pine that could support longleaf pine or oak- hickory forests. From 1966 to 1986, about 26% of land capable of supporting forests in the longleaf pine ecological system was managed for loblolly pine. This is evident by examining the percent of current loblolly pine stands 21-40 years old that occur on longleaf pine sites (Table 6). During this same period about 30% of land capable of supporting forests in oak-hickory ecological systems was managed for loblolly pine. Similarly, shortleaf pine was favored over longleaf pine and oak-hickory forests in these

DRAFT same ecological systems. A change in this trend is evident beginning in the 1990s (1-10 and 11-20 year age classes). Fewer regeneration areas were managed for loblolly pine, which is reflected in the small percentage (0% to 2.1%) of acres of potential longleaf or oak-hickory sites that are currently dominated by loblolly pine in the 1-10 year age-class (Table 6). During this same period shortleaf pine was still managed on sites more suitable for longleaf pine (114 acres) or oak-hickory forests (902 acres), but longleaf pine was planted on over twice as many acres (429) as during the previous two decades (Table 5).

Table 6. Trends in the preference of species managed on the UWNF from 1966 to 2006 evident from the age class distribution of loblolly and shortleaf pine forest types that occupy longleaf and oak- hickory sites.

Longleaf Pine sites Oak-Hickory sites Longleaf Pine sites Oak-Hickory sites Existing Forest Type Existing Forest Type Age Existing Forest Type Existing Forest Type (% of potential (% of potential oak- Class (acres) (acres) longleaf pine) hickory) (years) Loblolly Shortleaf Loblolly Shortleaf Loblolly Shortleaf Loblolly Shortleaf pine pine pine pine pine pine pine pine 1-10 0 114 148 902 0.0% 13.6% 2.1% 11.1% 11-20 864 120 1,289 1,578 22.1% 14.4% 18.1% 19.5% 21-30 438 66 1,150 975 11.2% 8.0% 16.1% 12.0% 31-40 1,138 45 1,905 833 29.1% 5.3% 26.7% 10.3%

0-20 864 234 1,437 2,480 11.1% 20.8% 11.1% 20.9% 21-40 1,576 111 3,055 1,808 25.8% 10.7% 29.5% 17.2%

41-50 713 7 1,570 19 18.3% 0.8% 22.0% 0.2% 51-60 170 15 318 83 4.3% 1.8% 4.5% 1.0% 61-70 71 59 139 107 1.8% 7.1% 1.9% 1.3% 71-80 47 141 132 991 1.2% 17.0% 1.9% 12.2% 81-90 220 141 291 801 5.6% 17.0% 4.1% 9.9% 91-100 236 87 158 684 6.0% 10.4% 2.2% 8.4% 100+ 7 39 32 1,130 0.2% 4.6% 0.5% 14.0% 3,904 834 7,132 8,103

Condition and Trend in Canopy Structure based on the extent of thinning About 2,200 acres of thinning has occurred on the UWNF in the past 10 years; 1,571 acres in loblolly pine stands, 571 acres in longleaf pine stands, and 63 acres in shortleaf pine stands (Table 7). During the past 5 years, however, thinning activities have accelerated from an average of 220 acres per year for the decade to 370 acres per year.

Table 7. Stands thinned on the UWNF from 1996 to 2006 Existing Potential Comp.- Forest Ageclass Ecological System Stand Name Acres Year Type (years) NAME1/ (acres) 16-15 West Branch 9 1996 loblolly 61-70 DOH(6), DMOH(3) 36-1 Roberdo 80 1996 loblolly 31-40 LL(60), DMOH(14), SS(6) 11-12 Beaverdam 51 1998 loblolly 31-40 DOH(29), DMOH (11), SS(11) 31-20 Dutchman 20 1998 shortleaf 61-70 LL(10), DOH(10) 31-24 Wood Run 29 1998 loblolly 41-50 DOH(29) 31-17 Wood Run 30 1998 loblolly 41-50 DOH(10),DMOH(10),LL(10) 33-33 Wood Run 43 1998 shortleaf 21-30 DOH(28),DMOH(12),SS(3)

DRAFT

34-19 Wood Run 62 1998 loblolly 31-40 DMOH(27),DOH(25),SS(10) 35-15 Wood Run 19 1998 loblolly 41-50 DOH(10),DMOH(19) 19-2 East Morris Mt 53 2004 loblolly 31-40 DMOH(25), LL(27) 6-13 Abner 96 2004 loblolly 41-50 DOH(60),DMOH(36) 6-10 Abner 30 2004 loblolly 41-50 DOH(25),DMOH(5) 6-11 Abner 75 2005 loblolly 41-50 LL(40),DMOH(20),DOH(15) 6-16 Abner 38 2005 loblolly 41-50 DMOH(21),DOH(17) 30,32- 7,20 Yates Place 170 2005 loblolly 31-40 LL(120),DMOH(50) 32-6 Yates Place 56 2005 loblolly 41-50 DMOH(20),LL(20),DOH(16) 26-2 Yates Place 17 2005 loblolly 41-50 DMOH(10),LL(7) 32-5 Yates Place 63 2006 loblolly 41-50 LL(50),DMOH(13) 28-10 Yates Place 53 2006 longleaf 91-100 LL(53) 8-3 Yates Place 20 2006 longleaf 41-50 LL(20) 38-16 South Rocky Ck 57 2006 loblolly 31-40 DOH(26),DMOH(12),LL(19) 38-24 South Rocky Ck 13 2006 loblolly 91-100 LL(13) 39-1 South Rocky Ck 54 2006 loblolly 61-70 LL(30),DMOH(24) 39-5 South Rocky Ck 64 2006 loblolly 31-40 LL(47),DMOH(17) 39-3 South Rocky Ck 90 2006 longleaf 91-100 LL(96) 37-1&2 North Rocky Ck 290 2006 loblolly 31-40 LL(140),DMOH(110),DOH(40) 37-12 North Rocky Ck 49 2006 loblolly 41-50 DMOH(19),LL(30) 36-3 Clarks Grove 144 2006 longleaf 31-40 LL(144) 36-2 Clarks Grove 65 2006 loblolly 51-60 LL(40),DMOH(25) 36-3 Roberdo 264 2006 longleaf 31-40 LL(264) 36-5 Roberdo 88 2006 loblolly 51-60 LL(50),DMOH(30),SS(8) 36-12 Roberdo 13 2006 loblolly 41-50 LL(13) TOTAL 2,205 10 year average = 220 acres, 5 year average = 370 acres 1/ DOH (Dry Oak-Hickory felsic Forest), DMOH (Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory felsic Forest), LL (Longleaf pine Woodland), SS (Streamside Forest)

Current Fire Frequency and trends in prescribed burning Nearly 9,800 acres (about 20% of the Forest) have been prescribed burned at least once on the UWNF during the last 30 years (Table 8, column 3, last row “total for all types”). About 2,800 acres have been burned more than once in the last 10 years and 5,200 acres have been burned more than once in the last 20 years. Over one-half of the acres burned were dominated by loblolly or shortleaf pine occurring on sites capable of supporting longleaf pine forests, oak-hickory, or other types. The most frequent burning has occurred on sites capable of supporting longleaf pine; about one-half was dominated by longleaf pine at the time of burning. About 40% of the potential acres that could support forests in the Southeastern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodland ecological system have been burned at least once in the last 30 years (Table 8, 3rd row, 4th column). By contrast, only 13% of Oak-Hickory felsic Forest sites and about 11% of Xeric Oak sites have been burned during this period.

DRAFT Table 8. Prescribed fire frequency from 1986 to 2006 on the UWNF within ecological systems (potential acres)

Prescribe fire frequency at least once > once > once > once Ecological Potential in last 30 years in last in last in last System acres 10 years 15 years 20 years % of acres type acres acres acres Xeric Oak Forest 2,900 306 10.6 75 148 165 Shortleaf Pine-Oak Woodland < 100 5 5.0 0 0 0 Southeastern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodland 8,300 3,316 40.0 1,310 1,783 2,162 Dry Oak-Hickory (felsic) 19,200 2,558 13.3 450 728 962 Dry Oak-Hickory (mafic) 2,200 387 17.5 19 176 209 Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory (felsic) 9,150 1,611 17.6 475 667 856 Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory (mafic) 820 134 16.3 16 76 85 Southern Piedmont Mesic Forest 920 204 22.2 52 87 97 Streamside Forests 6,900 1,265 18.3 380 569 681 Total for all types 9,786 1/ 20.0 2,777 4,234 5,217 1/ Over ½ of prescribed burning occurred in forests not at their “potential” but dominated by shortleaf and loblolly pine

Evaluation The current composition of forests on the UWNF has departed to a large degree from what we have approximated and the literature has suggested for the pre-European settlement forest. Approximately two-thirds of the UWNF is dominated by pine and pine-hardwood forest types but composition in many of these forests lies outside of the natural range of variation based on our ecological condition rating (Appendix B). Although fewer acres have been planted to “offsite” species during the last 10 years, over 10,000 acres (25%) of the UWNF is still dominated by young to mid-age loblolly pine on sites better adapted to oak-hickory forests or longleaf pine. Many of these forests are inherently more vulnerable to natural disturbance events (hurricane, tornadoes, single disease or insect epidemics, fast moving wildfire) because many are intensively managed, even-aged stands approaching monoculture conditions.

The current structure of forests on the UWNF is variable but mostly outside the historic of variation. This is due primarily to the abundance of even-aged pine plantations on the Forest. About 2,200 acres of pine have been thinned in the past 10 years and thinning activities have accelerated during the last 5 years. Although thinning is the first step in restoring composition and structure for potential ecological systems on these sites, this is just 10% of the total 22,000 acres of pine dominated stands on the UWNF.

The current fire regime on most of the UWNF is outside the historic range of variation. Only about 20% of the UWNF has been prescribed burned during the last 30 years and less than 10% have been burned more than once during this period. Although a significant proportion of some ecological systems have been burned on multiple occasions (e.g. longleaf pine) only 13% of the most extensive ecological system (Dry- Oak-Hickory felsic) on the UWNF has been burned during this period.

DRAFT During the past 5 years there has been an upward trend in management to improve the composition and structure of forests and increase the role of fire as an ecological process on the UWNF. Therefore, the 1986 plan has allowed a shift away from activities that did not contribute to ecosystem resiliency and diversity (such as pine site conversion) and toward those that improve these key factors. However, under the existing plan guidance, the future trend in the ecological condition for most key factors is likely to remain only poor to fair. This expectation is primarily because thinning and prescribed burning objectives are not high enough to reduce the backlog of forests needing management, and because there are no objectives for restoring native plant communities. Ecological systems would therefore continue to be vulnerable to degradation. This is especially true for those rare systems not mentioned in the current plan, such as Southern Piedmont Glade and Barrens, Shortleaf Pine-Oak Woodland, Southern Piedmont Mafic Hardpan Woodland, Piedmont Seepage Wetland, and Southern Piedmont / Ridge and Valley Upland Depression Swamps. In addition, ecological systems that have declined in the past, such as Southeastern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodlands, would show little improvement.

The current ecological condition for most indicators on the UWNF is only “poor” to “fair” using the above benchmark categories (Table 9). Only 5 of the 14 ecological systems have “good” ratings for species composition, only one system has a “good” rating for canopy structure, and no ecological system has a “good” rating for subcanopy / understory composition and structure for fire processes. These low ratings are partially due to the ranking methodology used which calculates benchmarks relative to the potential (optimal) extent of an ecological system. As indicated previously, given the climatic, cultural, and ecological changes that have occurred over time, it might not be possible to achieve “optimal” conditions and therefore benchmark levels could be adjusted downward. However, it is not likely that this would change the results of the evaluation of ecosystem diversity needs because roughly one-third of the forests on the UWNF are dominated by species that are not best suited for the site, e.g. loblolly pine on upland oak or longleaf sites. In addition, thinning and prescribed fire, although used increasingly in recent years to reduce canopy closure and midcanopy cover, has not kept up in the past to the management needs. The fragmented condition of the UWNF also contributes to the low ecological condition ratings by increasing the complexity of implementing management practices such as prescribed burning and timber harvest. This may further indicate the need to adjust the levels estimated for the potential extent of ecological systems.

Table 9. Current ecological condition rankings for Ecological systems on the UWNF Ecological System Species Canopy Fire Hydro. Composition Structure Regime Regime Southern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodland Poor Poor Poor N/A Xeric Oak Forest Poor Poor Poor N/A Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (felsic) Good Fair Poor N/A Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (mafic) Fair Poor Poor N/A Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (felsic) Good Fair Poor N/A Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (mafic) Good Fair Poor N/A Mesic Forest Poor Fair Fair N/A Streamside Forest (directly influenced by alluvial processes) Poor Fair Poor N/A Streamside Forest (not directly influenced by alluvial processes) Good Fair Poor N/A

DRAFT

Successional Forest (Shortleaf and Loblolly) Poor Fair Poor N/A Shortleaf Pine-Oak Woodland Poor Poor Poor N/A Glade and Barrens unknown unknown Poor N/A Mafic Hardpan Woodland Poor Poor Poor N/A Upland Depression Swamp Good Good N/A Fair Piedmont Seepage Wetlands Fair Fair N/A Fair

43.14a – Risks to Selected Characteristics of Ecosystem Diversity The following threats or stresses have been identified for ecological systems and the diversity of native plant and animal species on the UWNF: 1) Habitat vulnerability: Sun-loving species that were once more widespread in open woodland habitats that currently exist only on managed rights-of-way (roadsides, railway embankments, power lines, or field margins) are at risk from damage due to mowing during the improper season or herbicide use which could lead to reduced viability or total loss of populations. These species include one T&E species, Schweinitz’s Sunflower. 2) Altered fire regime: Disruption of natural, historical fire return intervals, fire intensity, severity, and extent in ecological systems that changes the composition, structure and abundance of characteristic, fire-influenced species and communities. This includes communities and rare species that occur in nearly all of the ecological systems that occur on the UWNF. 3) Direct and indirect habitat disturbance: This threat includes primarily severe disturbance from unmanaged recreation (unauthorized roads in the OHV area) and risks from adjacent private land, i.e., wildfires originating from private land. 4) Altered conditions for insect infestations: This threat includes the risk of total loss of forests that are stressed by crowded growing conditions, (canopy closure outside its natural range of variation) and potential loss of more resistant species such as longleaf pine due to increases in tree density in loblolly plantations and the increase in pine beetle populations to epidemic proportions. 5) Competition for resources: This process includes the displacement of native species by non-native, invasive species that are capable of out-competing native species and communities for resources such as light, nutrients, and water. This threat is primarily a concern in Mesic Forests and where wildlife openings have been planted to non-native, and at times, invasive species.

Many of these threats are directly caused or at least aggravated by the fragmented nature of the UWNF. There are 61separate land parcels or patches on this 51,000 acre Forest of which only 25% (15 total) are greater than 500 acres in size (Table 10). These larger patches are further fragmented by internal private land holdings. The largest contiguous patch (no private in holdings) of NFS lands is located in the Pekin area and is only 4,200 acres in size but due to its irregular configuration provides a 30-mile perimeter with private lands. This perimeter is nearly 10% of the over 350 mile NFS and private land boundary that is managed on the UWNF. Furthermore, ownership fragmentation on the UWNF only worsens the effect of the decrease in natural fire compartment size within the proclamation boundary (Langley 2000) and increases the difficulty in restoring presettlement vegetation pattern.

DRAFT

Table 10. Patch size and Frequency on the UWNF Patch size Frequency Additional Edge effects (acres) 4,000-10,500 5 4 with multiple inholdings 1,000-2,000 4 3 with multiple inholdings 500-800 6 1 with in holding 100-400 23 3 outside proclaimed boundary 25-100 15 4-25 8 1 outside proclaimed boundary

The greatest uncertainty in this risk assessment is from the unpredictability of how natural disturbances (hurricanes, tornadoes, natural lightening fire ignition, drought, and the current warming of the earth’s atmosphere) may interact. A prolonged drought could increase the risk of a pine beetle epidemic which, given a natural lightening fire ignition, could lead to widespread loss of forest cover. Widespread loss of forest cover could also result from a severe hurricane in the interior Piedmont centered on the UWNF, not recorded historically, but not discountable given the increased hurricane activity in 2005. Although these natural disturbances are beyond our control, the suggested plan components should lessen these impacts especially if land acquisition and land consolidation occurs. Furthermore, those species more adapted to open conditions may, in fact, benefit from these uncertain disturbances.

43.15 – Plan Components for Ecosystem Diversity

Based on the evaluation of spatial scales, existing conditions, range or variability, condition of ecological characteristics, and risks, the following plan components should be used as part of the framework that provides characteristics of ecosystem diversity on the UWNF:

Desired Conditions:

• Woodlands and open forests with small canopy gaps, interspersed with glades and Piedmont prairies, occupy portions of the forest where they occurred historically. These forests contain mixed ages with old trees and old forest conditions. • Plant communities more common in the past are reestablished on appropriate sites across the forest. Examples include longleaf pine woodlands, shortleaf pine woodlands, and oak-hickory forests. • Non-native invasive species are at low levels that do not interfere with native plant reproduction and distribution. New outbreaks are not spreading. • There is increasing evidence of prescribed fire used to restore the structure, composition and ecosystem processes in ecological systems. • Biological diversity is evident across the forest, and is further enhanced by a system of botanical special areas. Rare plant communities are represented in this system. • Regenerating hardwoods are evident following disturbances in tree canopies (canopy gaps) in multi-age deciduous forests and mixed pine-hardwood forests.

DRAFT • The forest is in a healthy condition. Most trees are in good health, well-formed, and with little evidence of widespread insect and/or disease damage. A healthy forest includes some dead and dying trees as well as den trees that contribute to wildlife habitat. A healthy forest also contains patches of disturbance that provide habitat components desired by a variety of wildlife, and space and light for young trees (“regeneration”). • Ephemeral pools, ponds, swamps, seeps, bogs, and other wetlands are frequent throughout the Forest and conditions are secure for animals such as amphibians that use these habitats for reproducing. • Streamsides are dominated by native riparian vegetation. • Bogs and seeps are maintaining or increasing their size through natural hydrologic processes. • Ecological conditions (composition, structure, fire regime) are improving. Canopy closures are approaching the following levels:

Table 11. Desired canopy closures within Ecological Systems Ecological System Desired Canopy Closure Southern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodland 25%-60% Xeric Oak Forest 60%-80% Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (felsic) 60%-80% Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (mafic) 60%-80% Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (felsic) 60%-90% Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (mafic) 60%-90% Mesic Forest 80%-100% Streamside Forest 60-80%, 80%-100% Successional Forest 60-80% Shortleaf Pine-Oak Woodland 25%-60% Glade and Barrens 5%-25% Mafic Hardpan Woodland 25%-60% Upland Depression Swamp 60%-100% Seepage Wetlands 25%-100%

Objectives:

• Maintain 2,200 acres of existing longleaf pine as pine woodlands. • Implement restoration activities each year on an average 200 acres of oak-hickory and 100 acres of longleaf pine on sites where they occurred historically. This would amount to restoration activities on a minimum of 4500 acres over the fifteen year planning period.

Table 12. Restoration objectives for Ecological Systems Ecological System Total Acres restored in 15 years Southern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodland 1/ 1,500 Xeric Oak Forest 0 Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (felsic) 2/ 1,850-2,200 Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (mafic) 2/ 150-180 Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (felsic) 2/ 950-1,100 Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (mafic) 2/ 50 Mesic Forest 0

DRAFT

Streamside Forest 0 Successional Forest (Shortleaf pine) On potential Longleaf sites 0 On potential Oak-Hickory sites 0 Successional Forest (Loblolly pine) On potential Longleaf sites 0 On potential Oak-Hickory sites 0 Glade and Barrens 0 Mafic Hardpan Woodland 0 Upland Depression Swamp 0 Seepage Wetlands 0 1/ existing loblolly and shortleaf pine stands on longleaf pine sites > 40 years in age 2/ existing loblolly and shortleaf pine stands on oak-hickory sites > 50 years in age outside Wilderness areas

• Over the planning period, relocate at risk populations of Schweinitz’s sunflower adjacent to roads or railroads to sites more appropriate for long-term maintenance of the populations. • Thin stands of trees as needed to maintain room for growth and to discourage insect and disease infestation. Thin an average of 400 acres per year, or approximately 6,000 over the fifteen-year planning period.

Table 13. Thinning objectives for Ecological Systems Ecological System Total Acres thinned in 15 years Southern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodland 1/ 375 Xeric Oak Forest 0 Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (felsic) 2/ 175 Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (mafic) 2/ 50 Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (felsic) 2/ 100 Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (mafic) 2/ 50 Mesic Forest 0 Streamside Forest 3/ 950 Successional Forest (Shortleaf pine) 4/ On potential Longleaf sites 200 On potential Oak-Hickory sites 1,075 Successional Forest (Loblolly pine) 4/ On potential Longleaf sites 1,150 On potential Oak-Hickory sites 1,850 Glade and Barrens 0 Mafic Hardpan Woodland 0 Upland Depression Swamp 0 Seepage Wetlands 0 1/ all existing longleaf pine > 50 years in age, 2/ 5% of all oak forests > 80 years in age outside the wilderness 3/ only loblolly and shortleaf stands < 50 years in age outside the wilderness and more than 30 ft. from streams 4/ 2/3s of all loblolly or shortleaf pine stands > 20 years in age outside the wilderness not planned for restoration to longleaf pine or oak-hickory

• Apply prescribed fire to an average of 2,000 to 5,000 acres per year.

DRAFT Table 14. Prescribed burning objectives for Ecological Systems Ecological System Total in Average annual 15 years (acres) (acres) Southern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodland 350-800 1/ 3,200 Xeric Oak Forest 50-200 2/ 1,200 Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (felsic) 300-800 2/ 5,000 Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (mafic) 50-100 2/ 500 Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (felsic) 2/ 2,000- 100-300 4300 Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (mafic) 50-100 2/ 500 Streamside Forest 3/ 1,500- 50-200 4000 Successional Forest (Shortleaf pine) 4/ On potential Longleaf sites 50-150 600 On potential Oak-Hickory sites 350-800 4,500 Successional Forest (Loblolly pine) 4/ On potential Longleaf sites 300-800 3,000 On potential Oak-Hickory sites 350-900 5,000 Shortleaf Pine-Oak Woodland 20 5/ 90 Glade and Barrens 15 100 Mafic Hardpan Woodland 10 30 Upland Depression Swamp No target No target Seepage Wetlands No target No target 1/ all current longleaf pine PLUS 1,500 acres restoration 2/ all current oak forests burned at least once – PLUS all current oak forests > 50 years in age outside the wilderness 3/ all current mesic or streamside forest burned at least once – PLUS all mesic or streamside forest > 70 years in age outside the wilderness 4/ all loblolly or shortleaf pine forest burned at least once – PLUS all loblolly or shortleaf pine forest > 20 years in age outside the wilderness 5/ all potential Shortleaf Pine-Oak Woodland

• Each year treat an average of 20 acres to eliminate non-native invasive plants.

Guidelines: • When implementing prescribed burning, at least every third entry should be a growing season burn, and fire should be allowed to burn in a mosaic pattern. • An average fire return interval that is specific to each ecological system should be used when planning prescribed burns.

Table 15. Recommended Fire Return Interval for Ecological Systems Ecological System Average Fire Return Interval Southern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodland 3-5 years Xeric Oak Forest 5-7 years Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (felsic) 5-7 years Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (mafic) 5-7 years Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (felsic) 7-20 years Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (mafic) 7-20 years Mesic Forest 12-20 years Streamside Forest 12-20 years Successional Forest (Shortleaf and Loblolly) On potential Longleaf sites 3-5 years

DRAFT

On potential Oak-Hickory sites 5-7 years Shortleaf Pine-Oak Woodland 3-5 years Glade and Barrens 5-7 years Mafic Hardpan Woodland 3-5 years Upland Depression Swamp Ignitions should originate outside these areas - interval dependent upon seasonal and yearly water fluctuations Seepage Wetlands Ignitions should originate outside these areas - interval dependent upon seasonal and yearly water fluctuations

• Emphasize thinning in predominantly pine stands where the stem density is so high that it presents a risk of southern pine beetle infestation or where dying trees are creating high risk of catastrophic wildfire. • Thinning stands within the Longleaf Pine Ecological System should emphasize reducing competition between adjacent dominant trees as much as meeting the average per acre canopy closure objectives. • Vegetation should not be cut, and mechanized ground disturbing equipment should not be used within 30 feet of a perennial stream unless needed for riparian wildlife habitat, stream channel stability, or to provide access for recreation or stream crossings. If portions of trees felled in the outer 70 feet of the streamside forest fall into the 30-foot no-cut zone, that portion within 30 feet of the perennial stream should not be removed. • A 30-foot no-mechanized equipment zone should serve as protective strips along each side of all intermittent streams. It may consist of understory vegetation. Refer to North Carolina Division of Forest Resources Forestry Best Management Practices Manual for additional guidance. • Following extensive damage to trees from wind, water, insects or disease, restoration activities should restore the ecological system appropriate to the site. • The following priority should be used to select areas for treating non-native invasive plants: o Schweinitz’s sunflower habitat management areas; o Botanical special areas; o Streamside Forest; o General Forest • New ground disturbing activities should be located away from rare Ecological Systems (Glades and Barrens, Mafic Hardpan Woodland, Depression Swamps, and Seepage Wetlands) to avoid direct and indirect impacts to surface soil erosion or displacement and alteration of natural hydrologic functioning. • New occurrences of rare Ecological Systems (Glades and Barrens, Mafic Hardpan Woodland, Depression Swamps, and Seepage Wetlands) should be documented with a GPS or similar technology, and coordinates entered in a GIS. • All bogs, swamps, and wetlands should be protected from all activities that would alter natural hydrologic function. • When restoring longleaf pine, design activities to mimic conditions historically suitable for red-cockaded woodpecker on at least 700 restoration acres.

DRAFT

Suitable Uses • Identify up to 15% of common ecological systems and 100% of rare ecological systems as Botanical Special Interest Areas and manage as not suitable for timber production.

43.2 – Species Diversity 43.21 – Ecosystem Context for Species Ecological conditions that provide for ecosystem diversity are the context for the evaluation of species diversity. The spatial scales for considering ecosystem diversity on the UWNF were selected to address the administrative plan area and its role in the broader ecological context (Section 43.11). The Carolina Slate Belt and Southern Triassic Uplands provided the upper bounds on the area of analysis to evaluate and understand the environmental context and opportunities and limitations for NFS lands to contribute to the diversity of native plant and animal species. These ecological subregions include the geographic ranges and habitats of federally listed threatened and endangered species, species-of-concern, and species-of interest (CFR 219.10(b)(2)) that occur or could occur on the UWNF. The following analysis is used to determine if additional species-specific plan components may be necessary to sustain species diversity in addition to those identified for maintaining ecosystem diversity.

43.22 – Identification and Screening of Species As directed (FSH 1909.12.43.2)), we have identified 298 federally threatened and endangered species, potential species-of-concern, and potential species-of-interest whose ranges include the UWNF plan area and/or are found within the ecological subregions that include the UWNF. We used the following steps to identify these species:

1. Included all species from a comprehensive list of species found, or potentially found, on the UWNF that are (a) listed as proposed, threatened, or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act, (b) listed on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list, (c), identified as locally rare on national forest within the ecoregion by Forest Service biologists, (d) are birds of conservation concern identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and (e) declining species of high public interest (Southern Appalachian Forest Environmental Impact Statement – R8 - Mersmann -2003), 2. To update the list compiled in # 1, added all species that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified on their most recent list of Birds of Conservation Concern National Priority, 3. To update the list compiled in # 1, added all species identified as species of conservation concern in the NC State Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy, and as a final check on species that occur in similar ecoregions, 4. Added all species (not in the above list) from the North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia Natural Heritage program Element Occurrence GIS coverage that occur within the Carolina Slate Belt and Triassic Basin Ecological Subsections.

DRAFT Our first screen excluded 92 species from the above list whose ranges do not include the UWNF; all of these species were identified after step 4 above.

43.22a – Federally Listed Species There are 5 species listed by the Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened or endangered whose ranges include the UWNF plan area (Appendix C). They are the bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, eastern cougar, Schweinitz’s Sunflower, and Michaux’s Sumac. The Eastern Cougar was dropped from further analysis because the species has been extirpated from the Southern Piedmont and the UWNF does not have sufficient contiguous habitat to support this wide-ranging species. Three of the remaining four species have been documented on the UWNF. They are the bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, and Schweinitz’s sunflower.

43.22b – Species-of-Concern Species-of-concern are species that may require management actions to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. They were tentatively identified as species with ranks of G-1 through G-3 or T-1 through T-3. There are 27 potential species-of-concern whose ranges include the UWNF plan area (Appendix C). They include 1 mammal, 1 bird, 1 beetle, 1 grasshopper, 1 moth, 1 butterfly, and 21 vascular plants. Only six of these species (all vascular plants) are known to occur on the UWNF.

43.22c – Species-of-Interest Species-of-interest are species that management actions may be needed or desirable to achieve ecological or other multiple-use objectives. We reviewed the following sources for potential species-of-interest: 1. Species with ranks of S-1, S-2, N1, or N2 on the NatureServe ranking system, 2. State listed threatened and endangered species that do not meet the criteria for species-of-concern, 3. Species identified as species of conservation concern in the North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, 4. Bird species on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern National Priority list, and 5. Species that are hunted and of public interest.

We identified 174 potential species-of-interest whose ranges include the UWNF plan area (Appendix C). They include 11 mammals, 40 birds, 12 amphibians, 20 reptiles, 2 beetles, 1 grasshopper, 18 moths, 14 butterflies, and 55 vascular plant species. Only 38of these species (2 amphibians, 1 butterfly, 23 birds, and 12 vascular plants) are known to occur on the UWNF.

43.22d – Screening Species-of-Concern and Species-of-Interest for Further Consideration in the Planning Process

We used the following criteria to screen species from further consideration in the planning process (Appendix C):

DRAFT 1. Species is secure in North Carolina and Globally, i.e. S4,S5 or S3S4, and not G1- G3 and likely secure within the plan area (63 species). 2. No records of species in the 4 county area, and data on species is insufficient to fully discern habitat preferences or develop management guidelines, i.e., 45 species have no records in North Carolina within the Carolina Slate Belt or Southern Triassic Uplands Subsections, 2 species have been extirpated in North Carolina and their historical distribution is unknown or vague, and the panel of experts developing the comprehensive species list described at # 1 in section 43.22 above were undecided if the remaining 6 species were likely to occur on the UWNF: a total of 53 species were screened using these criteria. 3. Management action not necessary to prevent federally listing (7 species); 6 species are G5 ranked, 1 species habitat preference is too vague and broad ranging. 4. Species occurs in the 4-county area, is not known from the UWNF, but if it occurred would not be affected by management practices (6 species): all mobile species (5 snakes and 1 butterfly) capable of avoiding direct impacts. 5. Species is fairly widespread, i.e., occurring in more than one ecological section (Piedmont, Mountains, Coastal Plain) in North Carolina, and / or the UWNF does not include a significant portion of the species range to contribute to conservation (6 species).

Following this screening, we identified 65 species that met one or all of the following factors important for identifying species-of-concern and species-of-interest: 1. Species and its habitats are not well-distributed in the plan area. 2. Species population numbers are low in the plan area. 3. Species is dependent on a specialized and/or limited habitat in the plan area. 4. Species is subject to some imminent threat (e.g., disturbance due to road systems). 5. Species is of high public interest.

43.23 – Information Collection Information on habitat relationships, threats, distribution, status, quality of information, and the relationship of the UWNF to contribute to conservation was collected and synthesized for the 65 species considered species-of-concern or species-of-interest following the above screening process. Information for these species and the five threatened and endangered species is summarized in the following tables (16-20).

Table 16. Habitat relationships and key ecosystem characteristics important to sustain threatened, endangered, species-of-concern, and species of interest on the UWNF. On Scientific Name Habitat relationship - Ecological system or Key ecological characteristics UWNF (Common Name) other habitat features (G-rank)1/ Threatened or Endangered Birds Haliaeetus leucocephalus mature forests near large bodies of water for canopy structure, i.e., presence of yes (Bald eagle) nesting supercanopy trees species composition, canopy structure yes Picoides borealis Southeastern interior longleaf pine woodland (open), midcanopy structure (open), fire historic (Red-cockaded woodpecker) (G2) return interval Threatened or Endangered Vascular Plants Echinacea laevigata Southern piedmont glade and barrens (G2?) over canopy structure (open), geologic no (Smooth coneflower) mafic or calcareous substrate substrate yes Helianthus schweinitzii Southeastern interior longleaf pine woodlands canopy structure (open or with gaps), fire

DRAFT

(Schweinitz’s sunflower) (G2), Southern piedmont glade and barrens return interval (G2?), Southern piedmont mafic hardpan woodlands (G2), roadsides, and rights-of-ways Rhus michauxii Southern piedmont hardpan woodlands (G2) on geologic substrate, canopy structure no (Michaux’s sumac) mafic slates (open) Bird Species of Concern Aimophila aestivalis Southeastern interior longleaf pine woodland canopy structure (open), fire return no (Bachman’s sparrow) (G2), and open fields interval Vascular Plant Species of Concern Southern piedmont glade and barrens (G2?), Baptisia australis var. Southern piedmont mafic hardpan woodlands canopy structure (open), geologic no aberrans (G2), and Xeric oak forests over calcareous rock substrate, fire return interval (Prairie blue wild indigo) (G2?) Southern piedmont mafic hardpan woodlands Berberis canadensis canopy structure (open), geologic no (G2), and Xeric oak forests over calcareous rock (American barberry) substrate, fire return interval (G2?) Carex impressinervia Southern Piedmont mesic forests (G3G4), and canopy structure (closed), competition yes (Ravine sedge) Streamside forests (G2G4) from non-native invasive species Eurybia mirabilis competition from non-native invasive yes Southern Piedmont mesic forests (G3G4) (Piedmont aster) species Dry oak-hickory forests (felsic) (G4G5), Dry- Fothergilla major yes mesic oak-hickory forests (felsic) (G4G5), and species composition (Large witch-alder) Xeric oak forests (G2G4) Heuchera caroliniana Dry-mesic oak-hickory forests (felsic) (G4G5) no canopy structure (closed) (Carolina alumroot) and Southern Piedmont mesic forests (G3G4) Lindera subcoriacea no Piedmont seepage wetlands (G2G3) hydrologic function (Bog spicebush) Lotus helleri open forest, woodlands, and roadsides excluding no canopy structure (open or with gaps) (Carolina birdfoot-trefoil) Mesic forests and Streamside forests Parthenium auriculatum Southern Piedmont mafic hardpan woodlands geologic substrate, canopy structure yes (Glade wild quinine) (G2) (open), fire return interval Ruellia purshiana yes Dry-mesic oak-hickory forests (mafic) (G2G3) geologic substrate, fire return interval (Pursh’s wild-petunia) Solidago plumosa mafic rock outcrops adjacent to rivers in no geologic substrate, hydrologic function (Yadkin river goldenrod) Streamside forests (G2G4 – G?) Southern Piedmont glade and barrens (G2?), Symphyotrichum georgianum canopy structure (open), fire return yes Southern Piedmont mafic hardpan woodlands (Georgia aster) interval (G2), and Xeric oak forests (G2G4) Shortleaf pine-oak woodlands (G2), Xeric oak Tridens chapmanii no forests (G2G4), Southeastern interior longleaf canopy structure (open or with gaps) (Chapman’s redtop) pine woodlands (G2), and roadsides Mammal Species of Interest species composition and canopy structure Corynorhinus rafinesquii hollow trees, old buildings, beneath bridges – no (species capable of providing long-lived (Rafinesque’s big-eared bat) near water in Streamside forests (G2G4 – G?) snags), hydrologic function species composition and canopy structure Lasionycteris noctivagans Streamside forests, near water in tree cavities, no (species capable of providing long-lived (Silver-haired bat) clumps of leaves, crevices (G2G4 – G?) snags), hydrologic function species composition and canopy structure Myotis austroriparius buildings, hollow trees, forages near water in no (species capable of providing long-lived (Southeastern myotis) Streamside forests (G2G4 – G?) snags), hydrologic function Sciurus niger Southeastern interior longleaf pine woodlands canopy composition and structure (open), no (Eastern fox squirrel) (G2) understory composition (herbaceous) Amphibian Species of Interest Piedmont seepage wetlands (G2G3), Streamside Ambystoma talpoideum forests (G2G4), Southern Piedmont / Ridge and yes hydrologic function (Mole salamander) Valley upland depression swamps (G1G3), and fishless ponds Piedmont seepage wetlands (G2G3), Streamside Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum forests (G2G4), Southern Piedmont / Ridge and no hydrologic function (Eastern tiger salamander) Valley upland depression swamps (G1G3), and fishless ponds Seepage wetlands in Southeastern interior Eurycea quadridigitata no longleaf pine woodlands and Streamside forests hydrologic function (Dwarf salamander) (G?) Piedmont seepage wetlands (G2G3), Southern Hemidactylium scutatum yes Piedmont / Ridge and Valley upland depression hydrologic function (Four-toed salamander) swamps (G1G2), Streamside forests (G2G4),

DRAFT

pools, and ponds Bird Species of Interest Accipiter striatus a variety of coniferous, mixed, or deciduous canopy structure, i.e. a forest or no (Sharp-shinned hawk) forests & woodlands woodland. key characteristics unknown Ammodramus savannarum grasslands with clumped vegetation, possibly canopy structure, i.e. treeless, understory no (Grasshopper sparrow) wildlife fields and openings species composition, i.e. grasses Southeastern interior longleaf pine woodlands Colinus virginianus canopy structure (open), fire return yes (G2), cropland, grassland, and pastures, wildlife (Northern bobwhite) interval openings Southeastern interior longleaf pine woodlands Contopus virens canopy structure (open), fire return yes (G2), Dry-oak hickory forests (all) (G2G5), (Eastern wood pewee) interval Shortleaf pine-oak woodlands (G1) Southeastern interior longleaf pine woodlands (G2), Shortleaf pine-oak woodlands (G1), Late Dendroica discolor canopy structure (open), fire return yes successional shortleaf pine forests (G?), (Prairie warbler) interval Southern piedmont mafic hardpan woodland (G2) Lanius ludovicianus fields, pastures, wildlife fields, and wildlife yes lucovicianus canopy structure, i.e. treeless openings (Loggerhead shrike) Melanerpes erythrocephalus snags in Dry oak-hickory forests (all) (G2G5), yes canopy structure (open) (Red-headed woodpecker) late successional shortleaf pine forests (G?) Southeastern interior longleaf pine woodlands Sitta pusilla canopy structure (open), fire return yes (G2), late successional shortleaf pine forests (Brown-headed nuthatch) interval (G?) Insect Species of Interest a variety of coniferous, mixed, or deciduous Erynnis martialis yes forests & woodlands and woodland edges; host canopy structure (gaps) (Mottled duskywing) plant = ceanothus Vascular Plant Species of Interest a variety of forests & woodlands, primarily xeric Unknown; reproductive and Amorpha schwerinii yes to dry but not usually on mafic or calcareous establishment biology is poorly (Piedmont Indigo-bush) substrates understood Anemone berlandieri Southern piedmont glade and barrens (G2?) in geologic substrate, canopy structure yes (Southern Anemone) thin, circumneutral soils around rock outcrops (open) Arabis missouriensis Southern piedmont glade and barrens (G2?) in geologic substrate, canopy structure no (Missouri rockcress) thin, circumneutral soils around rock outcrops (open) Baptisia alba var alba Southern piedmont glade and barrens (G2?), canopy structure (open or with gaps), fire no (Thick-pod white wild Southern piedmont mafic hardpan forests (G2), return interval indigo) Xeric oak forests (G2?), and roadsides Southern piedmont glade and barrens (G2?), Baptisia albescens Southern piedmont mafic hardpan forests (G2), canopy structure (open or with gaps), fire yes (Thin-pod white wild indigo) Southeastern interior longleaf pine woodlands return interval (G2), roadsides, and rights-of-ways Cardamine dissecta species composition, canopy structure yes Southern piedmont mesic forests (G3G4) (Dissected toothwort) (closed) Celastrus scandens species composition, canopy structure no Southern piedmont mesic forests (G3G4) (American bittersweet) (closed) Southern piedmont glade and barrens (G2?), Southern piedmont mafic hardpan forests (G2), Cirsium carolinianum Xeric oak forests (G2G4), Southeastern interior canopy structure (open), geologic yes (Carolina thistle) longleaf pine woodlands (G2), and Dry-mesic substrate, fire return interval oak-hickory forest over mafic or calcareous rock (G2G3) Southern piedmont mesic forests (G3G4), geologic substrate, canopy structure Collinsonia tuberosa Streamside forests (G2G4), and Dry-mesic oak- yes (closed or with gaps) (Piedmont horsebalm) hickory forests over calcareous or mafic

substrates (G2G3) Danthonia epilis Piedmont seepage wetlands around rock no hydrologic function (Bog oatgrass) outcrops (G2G3) Southern piedmont glade and barrens (G2?), and Dichanthelium annulum no Dry oak-hickory forests (mafic) on calcareous geologic substrate (Ringed witchgrass) substrates (G2G3) Dodecatheon meadia var. Southern piedmont mesic forests (G3G4), and no meadia Dry-mesic oak-hickory forest (mafic) on rocky geologic substrate (Eastern shooting star) sites over mafic or calcareous subsrates (G2G3) Gnaphalium helleri Southern piedmont mafic hardpan woodlands geologic substrate, fire return interval, yes (Heller’s rabbit tobacco) (G2), and Southern piedmont glade and barrens canopy structure (open)

DRAFT

over mafic rock G2?) Piedmont seepage wetlands (G2G3), Southern Helenium brevifolium geologic substrate, canopy structure no piedmont / ridge and valley upland depression (Littleleaf sneezeweed) (closed or with gaps) swamps (G1G3), and Streamside forests (G2G4) Southeastern interior longleaf pine woodlands Helianthus laevigatus (G2), Dry oak-hickory forests (felsic) (G4G5), canopy structure (open) and fire return yes (Smooth sunflower) Dry-mesic oak-hickory forests (felsic) (G4G5), interval and roadsides Xeric oak forests (G2?), Dry oak-hickory forests Hexalectris spicata geologic substrate, canopy structure no (mafic) (G2?), and Dry-mesic oak-hickory (Crested coralroot) (closed or with gaps) forests (mafic) (G2G3) Lilium canadense ssp. Editor no Piedmont seepage wetlands (G2G3) hydrologic function (Red Canada lily) Southern piedmont glade and barrens over mafic Matelea decipiens geologic substrate, canopy structure no rock (G2?), and Southern piedmont mafic (Glade milkvine) (open) hardpan woodlands (G2) Southern piedmont glade and barrens over Oligoneuron album mafic, ultramafic, or calcareous rock (G2?), and geologic substrate, canopy structure no (Prairie goldenrod) Southern piedmont mafic hardpan woodlands (open) (G2) Oligoneuron rigidum ssp. Southern piedmont glade and barrens over glabratum mafic, ultramafic, or calcareous rock (G2?), and geologic substrate, canopy structure no (Southeastern bold Southern piedmont mafic hardpan woodlands (open) goldenrod) (G2) Pellaea wrightiana Southern piedmont glade and barrens over geologic substrate, canopy structure no (Wright’s cliffbrake) calcareous rock (G2?) (open) Plantago cordata slate-bottomed perennial stream beds in no hydrologic function (Heartleaf plantain) Streamside forests (G?) Porteranthus stipulatus Dry oak-hickory forests (mafic) (G2?) and Xeric geologic substrate, canopy structure no (Indian physic) oak forests on mafic rock (G2?) (open or with gaps) Quercus austrina river bluffs and levees of brown water streams in yes hydrologic function, geologic substrate (Bluff oak) Streamside forests over mafic rk (G?) Southern piedmont / ridge and valley upland Quercus bicolor no depression swamps over mafic or calcareous hydrologic function, geologic substrate (Swamp white oak) substrates (G1G3) Schoenoplectus etuberculatus no blackwater creeks in Streamside forests (G2G4?) hydrologic function (Canby’s bulrush) Southern piedmont mafic hardpan woodlands Silphium terebinthinaceum geologic substrate, fire return interval, no (G2), and Southern piedmont glade and barrens (Prairie dock) canopy structure (open) over mafic rock (G2?) Southern piedmont mafic hardpan woodlands Solidago radula geologic substrate, fire return interval, no (G2), and Southern piedmont glade and barrens (Western rough goldenrod) canopy structure (open) (G2?) Stachys sp. 1 no sandy alluvium in Streamside forests (G2G4?) hydrologic function (a Hedge nettle) Stewartia ovata Southern piedmont mesic forests (G3G4) species composition, canopy structure yes (Mountain camellia) especially with beech and rhododendron (closed) Symphyotrichum laeve var. Southern piedmont mafic hardpan woodlands geologic substrate, fire return interval, no concinnum (G2), and Southern piedmont glade and barrens canopy structure (open or with gaps) (Narrow-leaf aster) (G2?) or Xeric oak forests over mafic rock (G2?) Tradescantia virginiana yes Southern piedmont mesic forests (G3G4 canopy structure (closed) (Virginia spiderwort) Southern piedmont mafic hardpan woodlands Trichostema brachiatum no (G2), and Southern piedmont glade and barrens geologic substrate, fire return interval (Glade bluecurls) over mafic rock (G2?), and prairies Viola Walteri species composition, canopy structure yes Southern piedmont mesic forest (G3G4) (Prostrate Blue Violet) (closed)

1/ G-rank of ecological system: combined ranks from plant associations within the ecological system. G1 = CRITICALLY IMPERILED, generally 5 or fewer occurrences and/or very few remaining acres or very vulnerable to elimination throughout it range due to other factor(s). G2 = IMPERILED, generally 6-20 occurrences and/or few remaining acres or very vulnerable to elimination throughout its range due to other factor(s). G3 = VULNERABLE, generally 21-100 occurrences. Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally, even abundantly, within a restricted range or vulnerable to elimination throughout it range due to specific factors. G4 = APPARENTLY SECURE, uncommon, but not rare (although it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery). Apparently not vulnerable in most of its range.

DRAFT

G5 = SECURE, common, widespread, and abundant (though it may be quire rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery). Not vulnerable in most of its range. G? = UNRANKED, status has not yet been determined. Modifies and Rank Ranges ? = uncertainty about the rank in the range of 1 either way on the 1-5 scale. For example, a G2? Rank indicates that the rank is thought to be a G2, but could be a G1 or G3. G#G# = greater uncertainty about a rank is expressed by indicating the full range of ranks which may be appropriate. For example, a G2G4 rank indicates the rank could be a G2, G3, or G4. Q = questionable taxonomy. It modifies the degree of imperilment and is only used in cases where the type would have a less imperiled rank, if it were not recognized as a valid type (i.e., if it were combined with a more common type).

Table 17. Limiting factors 1/ to threatened, endangered, species-of-concern, and species of interest on the UWNF and rangewide. Source of information for rangewide limiting factors = Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002; source of information for limiting factors on the UWNF = local knowledge. On SCIENTIFIC NAME UWNF Rangewide limiting factors Limiting factors on the UWNF (Common Name) ? Threatened or Endangered Birds Haliaeetus leucocephalus habitat loss & fragmentation, human lack of mature forest structure, human yes (Bald eagle) disturbance, pesticides disturbance habitat loss & fragmentation, lack of yes Picoides borealis lack of open habitat, lack of mature forest open habitat, lack of fire, lack of mature historic (Red-cockaded woodpecker) structure, lack of fire forest structure Threatened or Endangered Vascular Plants Echinacea laevigata habitat loss & fragmentation, lack of open no lack of open habitat, lack of fire (Smooth coneflower) habitat, habitat vulnerability. habitat loss and fragmentation, lack of Helianthus schweinitzii lack of open habitat, habitat vulnerability, yes open habitat, habitat vulnerability, lack of (Schweinitz’s sunflower) lack of fire fire habitat loss and fragmentation, lack of Rhus michauxii no fire, population distribution, habitat lack of open habitat, lack of fire (Michaux’s sumac) vulnerability. Bird Species of Concern Aimophila aestivalis lack of mature (pine) forest structure, lack lack of mature (pine) forest structure, lack no (Bachman’s sparrow) of fire of fire, lack of open habitat Vascular Plant Species of Concern Baptisia australis var. habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally naturally limited habitat, lack of open no aberrans limited habitat habitat, lack of fire (Prairie blue wild indigo) lack of open habitat, eradication Berberis canadensis programs, lack of fire, fire suppression, lack of open habitat, lack of fire, naturally no (American barberry) non-native invasive species, naturally limited habitat limited habitat habitat loss and fragmentation, lack of Carex impressinervia lack of mature forest structure, non-native yes mature forest structure, hydrologic (Ravine sedge) invasive species modification, non-native invasive species Eurybia mirabilis habitat loss and fragmentation, population distribution of populations, naturally yes (Piedmont aster) distribution, unknown limited habitat, unknown Fothergilla major habitat loss and fragmentation, population yes habitat vulnerability, unknown (Large witch-alder) distribution Heuchera caroliniana habitat loss and fragmentation, forest unknown, (NC watch list species not no (Carolina alumroot) management tracked by State) Lindera subcoriacea naturally limited habitat, hydrologic no naturally limited habitat (Bog spicebush) modification, prescribed fire (plowlines) Lotus helleri no habitat loss and fragmentation, unknown lack of open habitat, unknown (Carolina birdfoot-trefoil) Parthenium auriculatum naturally limited habitat, habitat loss and distribution of populations, naturally yes (Glade wild quinine) fragmentation, lack of open habitat limited habitat Ruellia purshiana lack of open habitat, habitat vulnerability, distribution of populations, lack of open yes (Pursh’s wild-petunia) lack of fire habitat, habitat vulnerability, lack of fire naturally limited habitat, habitat loss and Solidago plumosa fragmentation, human disturbance, non- no naturally limited habitat, unknown (Yadkin river goldenrod) native invasive species, population distribution Symphyotrichum georgianum lack of open habitat, habitat vulnerability lack of open habitat, habitat vulnerability yes (Georgia aster) lack of fire lack of fire no Tridens chapmanii habitat loss and fragmentation, lack of lack of open habitat, lack of fire

DRAFT

(Chapman’s redtop) open habitat, lack of fire Mammal Species of Interest habitat loss and fragmentation (loss of forest habitat, hollow tree removal, Corynorhinus rafinesquii no decreased availability of abandoned (Rafinesque’s big-eared bat) buildings, vandalism of caves and mines), lack of mature forest structure human disturbance 2/ lack of mature forest structure (insufficient recruitment of preferred Lasionycteris noctivagans roosts 33 feet above the ground in large no lack of mature forest structure (Silver-haired bat) snags, pesticides, habitat loss and fragmentation, human disturbance (wind farms) Myotis austroriparius human disturbance (destruction of cave no habitat vulnerability, unknown (Southeastern myotis) hibernacula, habitat vulnerability Sciurus niger lack of mature forest structure, lack of lack of mature forest structure, lack of open no (Eastern fox squirrel) open conditions, lack of fire conditions, lack of fire Amphibian Species of Interest Ambystoma talpoideum naturally limited habitat, hydrologic distribution of populations, naturally yes (Mole salamander) modification, forest management limited habitat Ambystoma tigrinum naturally limited habitat, habitat loss and no tigrinum fragmentation, hydrologic modification naturally limited habitat (Eastern tiger salamander) Eurycea quadridigitata habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally no naturally limited habitat (Dwarf salamander) limited habitat, hydrologic modification habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally limited habitat, hydrologic modification, Hemidactylium scutatum distribution of populations, naturally yes human disturbance (development of (Four-toed salamander) limited habitat intervening uplands inhibiting dispersal and colonization of new habitats) Bird Species of Interest naturally limited habitat (in the southern Accipiter striatus no periphery of breeding range), pesticides, unknown (Sharp-shinned hawk) human disturbance Ammodramus savannarum habitat loss and fragmentation, lack of lack of open habitat, habitat vulnerability no (Grasshopper sparrow) open habitat (potential) habitat loss and fragmentation , lack of Colinus virginianus yes open habitat, pests (fire ants) interspecific lack of open habitat, lack of fire (Northern bobwhite) factors habitat loss and fragmentation, Contopus virens habitat loss and fragmentation, interspecific yes interspecific factors, pesticides, human (Eastern wood pewee) factors disturbance (communication towers) habitat loss and fragmentation, Dendroica discolor yes interspecific factors, lack of open habitat, lack of open habitat, lack of fire (Prairie warbler) lack of fire Lanius ludovicianus distribution of populations, lack of open yes lucovicianus habitat loss and fragmentation, lack of fire habitat, lack of fire (Loggerhead shrike) Melanerpes erythrocephalus habitat loss and fragmentation, lack of yes lack of open habitat, lack of fire (Red-headed woodpecker) open habitat, lack of fire habitat loss and fragmentation, forest Sitta pusilla forest management (decrease in native pine yes management, interspecific factors, lack of (Brown-headed nuthatch) communities) fire Insect Species of Interest eradication programs (gypsy moth Erynnis martialis distribution of populations, lack of open yes spraying), non-native invasive species (Mottled duskywing) habitat, lack of fire (cheetgrass in west), lack of fire Vascular Plant Species of Interest forest management, hydrologic Amorpha schwerinii lack of fire, human disturbance (illegal yes modification, human disturbance (military (Piedmont Indigo-bush) OHV and horse use) operations), lack of fire habitat loss and fragmentation, human distribution of populations, naturally Anemone berlandieri yes disturbance (OHV, quarrying for limited habitat, human disturbance (illegal (Southern Anemone) limestone), naturally limited habitat OHV use) Arabis missouriensis habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally no naturally limited habitat (Missouri rockcress) limited habitat Baptisia alba var alba lack of open habitat, habitat vulnerability, no lack of open habitat, lack of fire (Thick-pod white wild lack of fire

DRAFT

indigo) Baptisia albescens lack of open habitat, habitat vulnerability, lack of open habitat, habitat vulnerability, yes (Thin-pod white wild indigo) lack of fire lack of fire Cardamine dissecta forest management, lack of mature forest distribution of populations, naturally yes (Dissected toothwort) structure limited habitat habitat loss and fragmentation, forest Celastrus scandens non-native invasive species, lack of mature no management, non-native invasive species, (American bittersweet) forest structure lack of mature forest structure Cirsium carolinianum naturally limited habitat, lack of open naturally limited habitat, lack of open yes (Carolina thistle) habitat, lack of fire habitat, lack of fire Collinsonia tuberosa yes habitat loss and fragmentation (Piedmont horsebalm) distribution of populations, unknown Danthonia epilis habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally distribution of populations, naturally no (Bog oatgrass) limited habitat, hydrologic modification limited populations Dichanthelium annulum no habitat loss and fragmentation, unknown unknown (Ringed witchgrass) Dodecatheon meadia var. habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally no meadia naturally limited habitat limited habitat (Eastern shooting star) Gnaphalium helleri habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally distribution of populations, naturally yes (Heller’s rabbit tobacco) limited habitat limited habitat Helenium brevifolium habitat loss and fragmentation, forest no naturally limited habitat (Littleleaf sneezeweed) management, naturally limited habitat Helianthus laevigatus lack of open habitat, lack of fire, non- lack of open habitat, lack of fire, non- yes (Smooth sunflower) native invasive species native invasive species Hexalectris spicata habitat loss and fragmentation, forest no naturally limited habitat (Crested coralroot) management, naturally limited habitat habitat loss and fragmentation, Lilium canadense ssp. Editor hydrologic modification, forest no naturally limited habitat (Red Canada lily) management practices, naturally limited habitat Matelea decipiens habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally distribution of populations, naturally no (Glade milkvine) limited habitat limited habitat Oligoneuron album habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally no naturally limited habitat (Prairie goldenrod) limited habitat Oligoneuron rigidum ssp. glabratum habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally no naturally limited habitat (Southeastern bold limited habitat goldenrod) Pellaea wrightiana habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally no naturally limited habitat (Wright’s cliffbrake) limited habitat habitat loss and fragmentation, hydrologic Plantago cordata modification (altered streamflow, no (Heartleaf plantain) enrichment of streams from agricultural fertilizers) unknown Porteranthus stipulatus habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally no naturally limited habitat (Indian physic) limited habitat Quercus austrina habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally no naturally limited habitat (Bluff oak) limited habitat Quercus bicolor habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally no naturally limited habitat (Swamp white oak) limited habitat Schoenoplectus habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally distribution of populations, naturally no etuberculatus limited habitat, hydrologic modification limited habitat (Canby’s bulrush) Silphium terebinthinaceum habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally no naturally limited habitat (Prairie dock) limited habitat Solidago radula habitat loss and fragmentation, naturally no naturally limited habitat (Western rough goldenrod) limited habitat Stachys sp. 1 no naturally limited habitat, unknown naturally limited habitat, unknown (a Hedge nettle) Stewartia ovata habitat loss and fragmentation, yes distribution of populations (Mountain camellia) interspecific factors. habitat loss (conversion of sites to Symphyotrichum laeve var. limestone quarries) and fragmentation, lack of open habitat, lack of fire, naturally no concinnum human disturbance (illegal OHV, horse limited habitat (Narrow-leaf aster) use), lack of fire. Tradescantia virginiana yes lack of mature forest structure distribution of populations (Virginia spiderwort)

DRAFT

habitat loss and fragmentation, forest Trichostema brachiatum no management practices, naturally limited naturally limited habitat (Glade bluecurls) habitat Viola Walteri habitat loss and fragmentation, non-native yes distribution of populations (Prostrate Blue Violet) invasive species

1/ Limiting Factor Category Limiting Factor Description

Habitat loss & fragmentation Limited by habitat loss or fragmentation caused by land use conversion. In the case of UWNF Limiting Factors, this may include conversions on in holdings or surrounding private land.

Lack of open habitat Limited by habitat degradation resulting from canopy closure and / or midcanopy tree and shrub development

Lack of mature forest structure Limited by lack of mature deciduous forest structure that may include abundant snags, down wood and den trees or mature pine forest structure that includes open park-like conditions.

Lack of fire Limited by habitat modification resulting from lack of regular fire

Naturally limited habitat Limited by naturally restricted abundance or distribution of potential habitat, such environmental conditions associated with mafic or calcareous substrates, rock outcrops, or wetlands.

Distribution of populations Limited by poorly distributed populations including single isolated occurrences

Habitat vulnerability Limited by susceptibility of roadsides or rights-of-ways to periodic direct and indirect impacts from herbicide use, improper mowing, or vehicle accidents – or vulnerability of habitat components, e.g., snags

Interspecific factors Limited by interactions with other native species through competition, predation, hybridization, or nest parasitism

Non-native invasive species Limited by interaction / competition with non-native species

Disease or pests Limited by diseases or pests

Hydrologic modification Limited by modification of hydrology associated with wetlands and other aquatic systems.

Forest management Limited by habitat modification or direct effects to individuals resulting from a variety of common forest management practices

Prescribed fire Limited by habitat modification or direct effects to individuals resulting from the use of prescribed burning especially fire plowline creation

Human disturbance Limited by human presence that results in disruption of animal behavior or trampling of plants, including impacts from recreation uses.

Pesticides/Toxins/Eradication programs Limited by environmental toxins resulting from pollution or pesticides or eradication programs such as gypsy moth control or control of alternate hosts (barberry) for black stem rust of wheat

Unknown Limiting factors are obviously at work due to evidence or rarity or declines, but they are largely unknown.

2/ from: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/wwap/plan/pdfs/Mammals_SilverhairedBat.pdf

DRAFT Table 18. Range wide distribution and state ranks for Threatened, Endangered (T&E), Species-of- Concern (SOC), and Species-of-Interest (SOI) on the UWNF. Rangewide Distribution and state rank1 Species Piedmont Remainder of Southern Region Scientific Name OTHER STATES G NC SC VA GA AL AR FL LA MS TN KY TX OK

T&E Birds Haliaeetus leucocephalus G5 S3 S2 S2 S2 S3 S2 S3 S3 S1 S2 S3 Plus all other States Picoides borealis G3 S2 S2 S1 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S1 SX S3 S1 T&E Vascular Plants Echinacea laevigata G2 S1 S1 S2 S2 PN(SX) Helianthus schweinitzii G3 S3 S1 Rhus michauxii G2 S2 SX S1 S1 SOC Birds Aimophila aestivalis G3 S2 S3 S1 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S2 S1 S3 S2 Plus 9 more (6 extirpated) SOC Vascular Plants Baptisia australis aberrans T2 S2 S2 NR Berberis canadensis G3 S2 NR S3 S1 SH S2 S1 MY(SH),MO(S2),OH(NR),PN(SX),WVA(S1), IL(S1) Carex impressinervia G12 S1 S1 S1 S1 Eurybia mirabilis G23 S2 NR Fothergilla major G3 S2 S1 S1 S2 S1 S2 Heuchera caroliniana G3 S3 NR Lindera subcoriacea G2 S2 NR SU S1 S1 S1 S1 S2 Lotus helleri T3 S3 NR S1 S1 Parthenium auriculatum G3 S1 NR NR MD(NR), WVA(SH) Ruellia purshiana G3 S2 NR NR S3 NR S1 MD(S1),WVA(SH) Solidago plumosa G1 S1 Symphyotrichum georgianum G23 S2 NR SE S2 SU SOI Mammals Corynorhinus rafinesquii G34 S3 S2 S2 S3 S2 S2 S2 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 MO(Su),OK(S1),IL(S1),WVA(S1),IN(SH) Lasionycteris noctivagans G5 S2 NR SU S5 NR S2 NR S1 S4 NR S4 S2 Plus 38 more states Myotis austroriparius G34 S3 S1 S3 S3 S2 S2 S3 S4 S1 S3 S1 S3 S1 MO(SU), IL(S1), IN(S1) Sciurus niger G5 S3 S4 S4 S5 S3 S4 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 Plus 27 additional states SOI Amphibians Ambystoma talpoideum G5 S2 NR S1 S5 S5 S3 NR S5 S5 S3 S3 S3 S1 MO(S2), IL(S3), IN(NR) Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum G5 S2 NR S1 S3 S3 S3 S3 S1 S1 S5 S4 S5 S4 Plus 27 additional states Eurycea quadridigitata G5 S2 NR S5 S5 S3 NR S5 S5 S5 Hemidactylium scutatum G5 S3 NR S5 S3 S3 S3 S2 S1 S1 S3 S4 S1 CN(S4),DL(S1),DC(SH),MA) + 14 more SOI Birds Accipiter striatus G5 S2 S2 S3 S4 S3 S1 NR S1 S1 S3 S3 S2 S4 Plus 39 additional states Ammodramus savannarum G5 S3 NR S4 S4 S3 S3 NR S3 NA S4 S4 S3 S4 Plus 35 additional states Colinus virginianus G5 S5 S4 S5 S5 S5 S5 NR S5 S5 S2 S5 S4 S5 Plus 31 additional states mostly S4-S5 Melanerpes erythrocephalus G5 S4 NR S4 S4 S5 S4 NR S4 S4 S4 S4 S3 NR Plus 27 additional states Dendroica discolor G5 S5 S4 S5 S5 S5 S4 NR S4 S5 S3 S5 S3 S3 Plus 22 additional states Lanius ludovicianus migrans G4 SU NR S1 NR S3 S3 S4 S4 Plus 17 northern States Sitta pusilla G5 S5 S4 S4 S5 S5 S4 NR S5 S4 S2 S4 S1 DE(S2),MD(S3),MO(SX) SOI Insects Erynnis martialis G34 S3 NR S1 SU SU S2 NR SU SU S3 S3 NR NR Plus 24 additional states SOI Vascular Plants Amorpha schwerinii G34 S3 S1 S2 NR NR Anemone berlandieri G4? S1 NR S1 S1 S3 NR NR S2 NR NR KS(S2) Arabis missouriensis G45 S1 S1 S2 NR SH Plus 15 northern & Midwestern States Baptisia alba alba T35 S2 NR NR NR NR Baptisia albescens G4 S2 NR S1 NR NR NR NR Cardamine dissecta G4? S2 NR S1 S3 NR S1 S4 S5 OH(S3),WVA(NR), IN(S1) Celastrus scandens G5 S2 NR NR S2 S2 NR S2 S2 NR S5 S1 NR Plus 27 additional states, mostly northern Cirsium carolinianum G5 S1 NR S1 S3 NR NR NRNRNR S3 NR NR MO(NR),OH(S2),(NR),IN(S2),IL(S2) Collinsonia tuberosa G34 S1 NR S3 NR NRNRNR Danthonia epilis G3? S2 NR SU S1 S1 NJ(S4) Dichanthelium annulum G23 SH Dodecatheon meadia meadia G5 S2 NR NR NR NR NY(SX),OK(SU),WVA(S4), IN(NR) Gnaphalium helleri 634 S3 NR S1 NR NR NR NR NRNR S2 SH S2 NR Plus 12 additional states – mostly northern Helenium brevifolium G34 S1 S1 S2 S1 S1 NR S1 S4 S1 Helianthus laevigatus G4 S2 NR S4 MD(S1),PN(NR)WVA(S2)

DRAFT

Hexalectris spicata G5 S2 NR S3 S3 S3 S2 S3 S2 S2 NR S4 NR S1 AZ(S3), KS(NR),MD(SH),MO(NR) + 3 states Lilium canadense editorum T4 S1 NR NR NR NR NR NR DC(NR),IN(NR)MD(NR)NY(NR) + 4 states Matelea decipiens G5 S2 NR S1 NR NR NRNRNR S4 NR NR AR(NR),KS(S1),MD(SH),MO(NR),IL(NR),IN(S1) Oligoneuron album G5 S1 NR S3 S1 S1 NR S2 Plus 16 additional states – mostly northern Oligoneuron rigidum glabratum T5 S2 NR S1 S3 NR NR NRNRNR S4 AR(NR),MO(NR),OH(NR),TX(NR) Pellaea wrightiana G5 S1 NR AZ(S3),CO(S2),NM(NR),OK(NR)TX(NR),UT(S1) Plantago cordata G4 S1 NR SH S4 S1 S2 SH S1 S1 SH DC(SH),IO(SH),MD(SH),NY(S3),OH(S1) + 5 others Porteranthus stipulatus G5 S2 S1 S3 NR NR NRNRNR S5 NR NR KS(S2),MD(SH),MH(NR)MO(NR),NY(SX) + 5 other Quercus austrina G4 S1 NR S3 NR NR NR Quercus bicolor G5 S2 S1 NR NR NR S5 Plus 23 additional states – mostly northern Schoenoplectus etuberculatus G34 S3 NR SH S1 NR NR S1 S3 DE(S1),MD(S1),MO(S1),RD(S1),TX(S1) Silphium terebinthinaceum G45 S2 S1 S1 S3 NR NR S4 S2 S4 NR NR AR(NR),DC(NR),IO(SU),MO(NR),OH(NR),WI(NR) Solidago radula G5? S1 NR NR NR NR S1 NR NR KS(S1),MO(NR) Stachys sp. 1 NR S1 Stewartia ovata G4 S2 S2 S2 S3 S2 NR S1 NR S3 Symphyotrichum laeve T4 S2 NR S3 S3 S1 S4 SN S3 DE(NR),DC(NR),MD(SH),NY(SH),OH(NR),PE(NR) Tradescantia virginiana G5 S1 NR NR NR NR NR NRNRNR S5 Plus 21 additional states – mostly northern Trichostema brachiatum G5 S1 NR NR NR NR NR NR NRNR NR NR NR Plus 23 additional states – mostly northern Tridens chapmanii T3 NR NR NR S3 NR NR NR NRNR S1 NR NR DE(NR),KS(S1),MD(NR),MO(S2),NJ(SH) Viola walteri G45 S1 NR S2 NR NR NR NR NRNRNR S2 NR OH(S2),WVA(NR)

1/State Rank: (lowest State ranking identified, e.g. S1S2 = S1, S2S3 = S2, etc.) S1= Critically imperiled in State because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state (1-5 extant populations) S2= Imperiled in State because of rarity or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state (6-20 extant populations). S3 = Rare or uncommon in State (21-100 extant populations) S4 = Apparently secure in State (100-1000 extant populations) S5 = Demonstrably secure in State (1000+ extant populations) NR = unranked, or rank uncertain SH = Of historical occurrence in State, perhaps not having been verified in the past 20 years, and suspected to be still extant. SN = Rank of non-breeding population in the State SRs = Significantly Rare in State (1-20 populations) SU = Possibly in peril in State but status uncertain; need more information SX = apparently extirpated from State

SZ = Population is not of significant conservation concern

Table 19. Quality of information used to determine the relative importance of the UWNF in sustaining threatened, endangered, species-of-concern, and species-of-interest.

Habitat Limiting Status & Scientific Name Relationships1/ Factors 2/ 3/ Comment (Common Name) Inventory

Threatened and Endangered Birds Haliaeetus leucocephalus high high high (Bald eagle) Picoides borealis high high very high (Red-cockaded woodpecker) Echinacea laevigata high high high (Smooth coneflower) Threatened or Endangered Vascular Plants Helianthus schweinitzii high high very high (Schweinitz’s sunflower) Rhus michauxii high moderate very high (Michaux’s sumac) Bird Species of Concern Aimophila aestivalis high high moderate (Bachman’s sparrow) Vascular Plant Species of Concern Baptisia australis var. aberrans high low-moderate low (Prairie blue wild indigo) Berberis canadensis high high very low (American barberry) Carex impressinervia moderate high moderate (Ravine sedge) Eurybia mirabilis moderate low moderate moderate (Piedmont aster)

DRAFT

Fothergilla major low high low (Large witch-alder) Heuchera caroliniana moderate, NC Heritage does not track this low very low (Carolina alumroot) low on UWNF “watch list” species Lindera subcoriacea high moderate moderate (Bog spicebush) Lotus helleri low moderate low (Carolina birdfoot-trefoil) Parthenium auriculatum high moderate moderate (Glade wild quinine) Ruellia purshiana moderate moderate low (Pursh’s wild-petunia) Solidago plumosa moderate high low (Yadkin river goldenrod) Symphyotrichum georgianum high high low-moderate (Georgia aster) Tridens chapmanii moderate low-moderate low (Chapman’s redtop) Mammal Species of Interest Corynorhinus rafinesquii moderate high low (Rafinesque’s big-eared bat) Lasionycteris noctivagans not evaluated in The Southern moderate moderate low (Silver-haired bat) App. Spp. Viability Project Myotis austroriparius moderate moderate low (Southeastern myotis) Sciurus niger high high low (Eastern fox squirrel) Amphibian Species of Interest Ambystoma talpoideum high high low (Mole salamander) Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum high low-moderate low (Eastern tiger salamander) Eurycea quadridigitata high moderate low (Dwarf salamander) Hemidactylium scutatum high moderate low (Four-toed salamander) Bird Species of Interest Accipiter striatus moderate moderate moderate (Sharp-shinned hawk) Ammodramus savannarum moderate high moderate (Grasshopper sparrow) Colinus virginianus high high moderate (Northern bobwhite) Contopus virens high moderate moderate (Eastern wood pewee) Dendroica discolor moderate high moderate (Prairie warbler) Lanius ludovicianus lucovicianus decline beyond what can be high low low (Loggerhead shrike) explained by habitat loss Melanerpes erythrocephalus high high moderate (Red-headed woodpecker) Sitta pusilla high high moderate (Brown-headed nuthatch) Insect Species of Interest Erynnis martialis unreliable records, magnitude low low-moderate very low (Mottled duskywing) of loss is not clear. Vascular Species of Interest Amorpha schwerinii reproductive and establishment moderate moderate low (Piedmont Indigo-bush) biology poorly understood Anemone berlandieri high moderate moderate (Southern Anemone) Arabis missouriensis high low-moderate moderate (Missouri rockcress) Baptisia alba var alba moderate low-moderate low (Thick-pod white wild indigo) Baptisia albescens high low-moderate low (Thin-pod white wild indigo) Cardamine dissecta high low-moderate moderate

DRAFT

(Dissected toothwort) Celastrus scandens moderate low-moderate moderate (American bittersweet) Cirsium carolinianum light loving species not moderate high low (Carolina thistle) associated with roadsides Collinsonia tuberosa moderate high low (Piedmont horsebalm) Danthonia epilis moderate high low (Bog oatgrass) Dichanthelium annulum high low-moderate low (Ringed witchgrass) Dodecatheon meadia var. meadia moderate moderate low (Eastern shooting star) Gnaphalium helleri high low-moderate moderate (Heller’s rabbit tobacco) Helenium brevifolium high moderate low (Littleleaf sneezeweed) Helianthus laevigatus high high low (Smooth sunflower) Hexalectris spicata moderate moderate low (Crested coralroot) Lilium canadense ssp. editor high high moderate (Red Canada lily) Matelea decipiens high low-moderate moderate (Glade milkvine) Oligoneuron album high low-moderate moderate (Prairie goldenrod) Oligoneuron rigidum ssp. glabratum high low-moderate moderate (Southeastern bold goldenrod) Pellaea wrightiana high low-moderate moderate (Wright’s cliffbrake) Plantago cordata moderate low-moderate low (Heartleaf plantain) Porteranthus stipulatus moderate low-moderate low (Indian physic) Quercus austrina moderate low-moderate low (Bluff oak) Quercus bicolor high low-moderate low (Swamp white oak) Schoenoplectus etuberculatus moderate high low (Canby’s bulrush) Silphium terebinthinaceum high moderate moderate (Prairie dock) Solidago radula high low-moderate moderate (Western rough goldenrod) Stachys sp. 1 moderate low-moderate low (a Hedge nettle) Stewartia ovata moderate high low (Mountain camellia) Symphyotrichum laeve var. concinnum high moderate low (Narrow-leaf aster) Tradescantia virginiana moderate moderate low (Virginia spiderwort) Trichostema brachiatum moderate moderate moderate (Glade bluecurls) Viola Walteri high moderate low (Prostrate Blue Violet)

1/ Habitat Information Quality Habitat Information Quality Definition

High Species habitat requirements are well known, well documented, and generally detailed and / or the species is wholly or primarily associated with unique, easily identifiable environments (mafic substrates, wetlands, old growth).

Moderate Species habitat requirements are moderately well known but often not detailed and / or the species occurs in a variety of ecological systems that share some similar but only broad environmental conditions

DRAFT

Low Species habitat requirements are poorly understood and / or the species appears to be a generalist based on the variety of ecological systems and habitats in which it is found.

2/Limiting Factor Quality Limiting Factor Quality Definition

High Information on limiting factors is adequate; the species was evaluated in The Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002 and / or other reliable source.

Moderate Information on limiting factors is moderately adequate; the species was evaluated in The Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002 and / or other reliable source.

Low-Moderate Information on limiting factors is moderately adequate; the species was not evaluated in The Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002.

Low Information on limiting factors is inadequate, e.g., the species was not addressed in The Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002 and no other source of information on limiting factors could be located – or – declines in population numbers remain unexplained.

1 Inventory Quality Quality Definition

Very High Information on occurrences or occupied and unoccupied habitat are very nearly complete--it is likely that a very high proportion (approx. >90%) of existing occurrences or occupied habitat on the NF unit are known; uncertainty about distribution and abundance of the species on the NF unit is very low.

High Information on occurrences or occupied and unoccupied habitat are predominately complete--it is likely that a high proportion (approx. 75-90%) of existing occurrences or occupied habitat on the NF unit are known; uncertainty about distribution and abundance of the species on the NF unit is low.

Moderate Information on occurrences or occupied and unoccupied habitat are of moderate completeness--it is likely that a moderate proportion (approx 50-75%) of existing occurrences or occupied habitat on the NF unit are known; uncertainty about distribution and abundance on the NF unit is moderate.

Low Information on occurrences or occupied and unoccupied habitat are of incomplete--it is likely that a low proportion (approx 25-50%) of existing occurrences or occupied habitat on the NF unit are known; uncertainty about distribution and abundance on the NF unit is high.

Very Low Data on occurrences or occupied and unoccupied habitat are of very incomplete--it is likely that a very low proportion (<25%) of existing occurrences or occupied habitat on the NF unit are known; uncertainty about distribution and abundance on the NF unit is very high.

Table 20. Relative importance of the UWNF in sustaining threatened, endangered, species-of- concern, and species-of-interest in North Carolina, across the Carolina Slate Belt and Southern Triassic Uplands ecoregions, and rangewide based on species habitat relationships, species and habitat rarity, and threats.

Relative importance 2/ Potential % of of UWNF in suitable1/ total sustaining species Scientific Name Species Habitat habitat EOs EOs in (Common Name) G-rank, G-rank abundance on Eco- S-rank on UWNF UWNF region State Ecoregion Rangewide

Threatened or Endangered Birds Haliaeetus leucocephalus G5, S3 G5 uncommon 1 1% very low very low very low (Bald eagle) Picoides borealis G3, S2 G2 common 0 0 low very low very low (Red-cockaded woodpecker) Threatened or Endangered Vascular Plants Echinacea laevigata G2, S1 G2? very rare 0 0 low low very low (Smooth coneflower) Helianthus schweinitzii G3, S3 G2, G2? common 29 15% high high high

DRAFT

(Schweinitz’s sunflower) Rhus michauxii G2, S2 G2 very rare 0 0 low very low very low (Michaux’s sumac) Bird Species of Concern Aimophila aestivalis G3, S3B G2 common 0 0 low very low very low (Bachman’s sparrow) S2N Vascular Plant Species of Concern Baptisia australis var. aberrans G5T2, S2 G2, G2? uncommon 0 0 moderate moderate moderate (Prairie blue wild indigo) Berberis canadensis G3, S2 G2, G2? uncommon 0 0 moderate low very low (American barberry) Carex impressinervia G1G2, S1 G2G4 uncommon 5 71% high high high (Ravine sedge) Eurybia mirabilis G2G3, S2 G3G5 rare 1 5% low low low (Piedmont aster) Fothergilla major G4G5 G3, S3 abundant 7 70% high high low (Large witch-alder) G2G4 Heuchera caroliniana G3G4 G3, S3 common 0 0 moderate low low (Carolina alumroot) G4G5 Lindera subcoriacea G2, S2 G2G3 rare 0 0 low very low very low (Bog spicebush) Lotus helleri G3, S3 G4G5? abundant 0 0 moderate low low (Carolina birdfoot-trefoil) Parthenium auriculatum G3?, S2 G2 very rare 5 18% low low low (Glade wild quinine) Ruellia purshiana G3, S2 G2G3 rare 1 14% moderate moderate low (Pursh’s wild-petunia) Solidago plumosa G2G4, G1, S1 very rare 0 0 low low low (Yadkin river goldenrod) G? Symphyotrichum georgianum G2?,G2 G2G3, S2 uncommon 5 11% moderate moderate low (Georgia aster) G2G4 Tridens chapmanii G2, G3, S1S2 abundant 0 0 moderate very low very low (Chapman’s redtop) G2G4 Mammal Species of Interest Corynorhinus rafinesquii G3G4T?, G2G4 common 0 0 moderate very low very low (Rafinesque’s big-eared bat) S2 Lasionycteris noctivagans G5, S2?B G2G4 common 0 0 moderate very low very low (Silver-haired bat) 24N Myotis austroriparius G3G4, S3 G2G4 common 0 0 moderate very low very low (Southeastern myotis) Sciurus niger G5, S3 G2 common 0 0 low very low very low (Eastern fox squirrel) Amphibian Species of Interest Ambystoma talpoideum G1G3 G5, S2 common 2 66% high high very low (Mole salamander) G2G4 Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum G1G3 G5, S2 common 0 0 moderate very low very low (Eastern tiger salamander) G2G4 Eurycea quadridigitata G5, S2 G? rare 0 0 low very low very low (Dwarf salamander) Hemidactylium scutatum G1G3 G5, S3 common 1 5% moderate very low very low (Four-toed salamander) G2G4 Bird Species of Interest Accipiter striatus G5, S2B G5 abundant 0 0 low very low very low (Sharp-shinned hawk) S4N Ammodramus savannarum G5, S3B G? rare 0 0 very low very low very low (Grasshopper sparrow) S1N Colinus virginianus G5, S5 G2, G5 common 5+ ? low very low very low (Northern bobwhite) Contopus virens G5, S5B G2G5 abundant 10 ? low very low very low (Eastern wood pewee) Dendroica discolor G5, S5B G1G2 common 15 ? low very low very low (Prairie warbler) S1N G4T4, Lanius ludovicianus lucovicianus S3B G5 rare 1 ? very low very low very low (Loggerhead shrike) S3N Melanerpes erythrocephalus G2G5 G5, S4 abundant 9 ? low very low very low (Red-headed woodpecker) G? Sitta pusilla G5, S5 G2, G? common 1 ? low very low very low

DRAFT

(Brown-headed nuthatch) Insect Species of Interest Erynnis martialis G3G4, S3 G2G5 very rare 1 33% low very low very low (Mottled duskywing) Vascular Plant Species of Interest Amorpha schwerinii G3G4, S3 G? rare 62 61% high high moderate (Piedmont Indigo-bush) Anemone berlandieri G4?, S2 G2? very rare 1 14% low low very low (Southern Anemone) Arabis missouriensis G5?Q, S1 G2? very rare 0 0 low low very low (Missouri rockcress) Baptisia alba var alba G5T3T5, G2, G2? uncommon 0 0 moderate low very low (Thick-pod white wild indigo) S2 Baptisia albescens G4, S2 G2, G2? common 9 30% moderate moderate very low (Thin-pod white wild indigo) Cardamine dissecta G4?, S2 G3G4 rare 2 22% moderate moderate low (Dissected toothwort) Celastrus scandens G5, S2 G3G4 rare 0 0 low very low very low (American bittersweet) Cirsium carolinianum G2, G2? G5, S2 abundant 11 79% high high low (Carolina thistle) G2G4 Collinsonia tuberosa G3G4, S1 G2G4 common 1 20% moderate low low (Piedmont horsebalm) Danthonia epilis G3G4, 2? G2G3 rare 0 0 low very low very low (Bog oatgrass) Dichanthelium annulum G2? GNR, SH rare 1 ? unknown unknown unknown (Ringed witchgrass) G2G3 Dodecatheon meadia var. meadia G3G4 G5T5, S2 uncommon 0 0 moderate low very low (Eastern shooting star) G2G3 Gnaphalium helleri G3G4, S3 G2, G2? very rare 1 8% low low very low (Heller’s rabbit tobacco) Helenium brevifolium G2G4 G4, S2 common 0 0 moderate low very low (Littleleaf sneezeweed) G1G3 Helianthus laevigatus G2 G4, S2 abundant 16 32% moderate moderate low (Smooth sunflower) G4G5 Hexalectris spicata G2? G5, S2 common 0 0 moderate very low very low (Crested coralroot) G2G3 Lilium canadense ssp. editor G5T4, S1 G2G4 rare 0 0 low very low low (Red Canada lily) Matelea decipiens G5, S2 G2?, G2 very rare 0 0 low low very low (Glade milkvine) Oligoneuron album G5, S1 G2?, G2 very rare 0 0 low low very low (Prairie goldenrod) Oligoneuron rigidum ssp. glabratum G5T4, S2 G2?, G2 very rare 0 0 low low very low (Southeastern bold goldenrod) Pellaea wrightiana G5, S1 G2 very rare 0 0 low low very low (Wright’s cliffbrake) Plantago cordata G4, S1 G? rare 0 0 low very low very low (Heartleaf plantain) Porteranthus stipulatus G5, S2 G2? uncommon 0 0 moderate very low very low (Indian physic) Quercus austrina G4, S1 G? very rare 1 0 low low very low (Bluff oak) Quercus bicolor G5, S2 G1G3 very rare 0 0 low low very low (Swamp white oak) Schoenoplectus etuberculatus G3G4, S3 G2G4? very rare 0 0 low very low very low (Canby’s bulrush) Silphium terebinthinaceum G4G5, S2 G2, G2? very rare 0 0 low low very low (Prairie dock) Solidago radula G5?, S1 G2G2? very rare 0 0 low low very low (Western rough goldenrod) Stachys sp. 1 GNR, S1 G2G4? very rare 0 0 low low low (a Hedge nettle) Stewartia ovata G4, S2 G3G4 rare 1 33% moderate low low (Mountain camellia) Symphyotrichum laeve var. G4T4, S2 G2, G2? uncommon 0 0 moderate low very low concinnum (Narrow-leaf aster)

DRAFT

Tradescantia virginiana G5, S1 G3G4 rare 1 25% moderate Low very low (Virginia spiderwort) Trichostema brachiatum G5, S1 G2, G2? very rare 0 0 low low very low (Glade bluecurls) Viola Walteri G4G5, S1 G3G4 rare 1 100% moderate moderate moderate (Prostrate Blue Violet)

1 The potential extent of ecological systems, i.e., environments, that could provide habitat conditions to support the species; multiple entries indicate multiple ecological systems that could provide suitable habitat conditions.

Habitat Abundance Category Habitat Abundance Definition abundant Environments that could support suitable habitat conditions for the species are abundant (> 10,000 acres on the UWNF).

common Environments that could support suitable habitat conditions for the species are common (3,000 – 10,000 acres on the UWNF).

uncommon Environments that could support suitable habitat conditions for the species are uncommon (1,000 – 3,000 acres on the UWNF).

rare Environments that could support suitable habitat conditions for the species are rare (150-1,000 acres on the UWNF.

very rare Environments that could support suitable habitat conditions for the species are very rare (< 150 acres).

2/ Importance Category Importance Category Definition

high A high proportion (generally more than 50%) of secure populations and/or habitat is on the UWNF; species significantly depends on the UWNF populations and / or habitat

moderate A moderate proportion (20-50%) of secure populations and/or habitat is on the UWNF; species moderately depends on the UWNF populations and / or habitat low A low proportion (generally 5-20%) of secure populations and/or habitat is on the UWNF; species has low dependence on the UWNF populations and / or habitat

very low A very low proportion (generally < 5%) of secure populations and/or habitat is on the UWNF; species has very low dependence on the UWNF populations and / or habitat unknown Information is insufficient to assess the importance of populations and habitat on the UWNF for this species

43.24 – Species Groups and Surrogate Species All federally listed species, species of concern, and species of interest, and those species that quality but do not occur on the UWNF, can be grouped into 5 categories:

1) species that occur in rare habitats associated with mafic or calcareous substrates and open canopy conditions, 2) species associated with rare wetland habitats, 3) sun-loving species not in the above categories that occur in woodlands and openings, 4) species that occur in mesic forests, and 5) species dependent on habitats close to wetlands or open water bodies.

This includes 70 species; 31 have been documented on the UWNF and 29 have not been documented but suitable habitat exists on the Forest. Species documented on the UWNF include: 3 T&E species, 6 species-of-concern and 22 species-of-interest (Tables 21-23).

DRAFT Instead of choosing one species as a surrogate or “indicator” species for the group, the species group will be considered further in the planning process to evaluate if plan components for ecosystems will be sufficient to sustain the species they contain. In addition, nearly one-half of these species are documented at less than 5 locations on the UWNF (Tables 21-23) indicating an additional category of species to be evaluated.

Table 21. Number of species within species habitat groups by status and rarity. T&E = federally listed as threatened or endangered (5 total) , SOC = species of concern (14 total), SOI = species of interest (51 total) Number of species Species Habitat Group total documented not documented Very rare on the (species that occur in the following on the UWNF on the UWNF UWNF habitats) T&E SOC SOI T&E SOC SOI (< 5 occurrences) Rare Communities on mafic or calcareous 24 2523 12 5 substrates requiring open canopy conditions Rare Communities in wetlands: seeps, bogs, 7 2 1 4 2 other hydric types Woodlands and openings; includes sun- loving species and species that hunt in open 21 2 2 10 3 4 3 habitats Mesic forests or microhabitats within mesic 11 2 5 1 3 6 forests Species that require wetlands or water for a 7 1 6 1 portion of their lifecycle Total 70 3 6 22 2 8 29 17 Very rare species: species included in the above groups documented at < 5 locations on 1 2 14 17 the UWNF

Table 22. Number of species element occurrences on the UWNF within species habitat groups by status (T&E = federally listed as threatened or endangered, SOC = species of concern, SOI = species of interest) # of documented occurrences Species Habitat Group Spp. T&E SOC SOI (species that occur in the following habitats) total Rare Communities on mafic or calcareous substrates requiring 7 21 0 6 15 open canopy conditions Rare Communities in wetlands: seeps, bogs, other hydric types 2 2 0 0 2 Woodlands and forest openings 14 100+ 30 9 100+ Mesic forests or microhabitats within mesic forests 7 12 0 6 6 Species that require wetlands or water for a portion of their 1 1 1 0 0 lifecycle Total documented occurrences 33 100+ 31 21 100+

Table 23. Species that occur within the Species Groups (species in bold have been documented on the UWNF). Underlined species have been documented at < 5 locations on the UWNF. Rare T&E: smooth coneflower, Michaux’s sumac Communities SOC: Pursh’s wild petunia, glade wild quinine, prairie blue wild indigo, American associated with barberry, Yadkin river goldenrod

DRAFT

mafic or calc. SOI: Southern anemone, Heller’s rabbit tobacco, bluff oak, ringed witch grass, rock and open Carolina thistle, Missouri rockcress, , crested coralroot, glade milkvine, prairie canopy goldenrod, Southeastern bold goldenrod, Wright’s cliff-brake, Indian physic, swamp conditions white oak, prairie dock, Western rough goldenrod, narrow-leaf aster, glade bluecurls Rare wetland SOC: bog spicebush Communities SOI: mole salamander, four-toed salamander, bog oatgrass, littleleaf sneezeweed, Red Canada lily, Canby’s bulrush Woodlands / T&E: red-cockaded woodpecker, Schweinitz’s sunflower openings SOC: large witch hazel, Georgia aster, Bachman’s sparrow, Carolina birdfoot- (includes spp. trefoil, Chapman’s redtop that hunt in SOI: loggerhead shrike, mottled duskywing, brown-headed nuthatch, Northern openings) bobwhite, Eastern wood pewee, prairie warbler, red-headed woodpecker, thin- pod white wild indigo, smooth sunflower, piedmont indigo-bush, Eastern fox squirrel, sharp-shinned hawk, grasshopper sparrow, thick-pod white wild indigo, Mesic forests SOC: piedmont aster, ravine sedge, Carolina alumroot SOI: dissected toothwort, piedmont horsebalm, mountain camellia, Virginia spiderwort, prostrate blue violet, American bittersweet, Eastern shooting-star, Yadkin hedge nettle Near Wetlands T&E: bald eagle (T&E), Eastern tiger salamander, dwarf salamander, Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, silver-haired bat, southeastern myotis, heart-leaf plaintain

43.25 – Plan Components for Species Diversity & 43.26 – Evaluation of Plan Components on Species Diversity

The UWNF provides habitat for a significant portion of all known occurrences of several species-of-concern and species-of-interest and is at the center of the range and supports multiple populations of one Federally-listed species (Section 4.3) – the Schweinitz’s sunflower. Therefore, although the UWNF represents only a fraction of the Carolina Slate Belt and Southern Triassic Uplands, its contribution to the sustainability of these species may be considerable. For example: • documented occurrences of 3 species-of-concern and 1 species-of-interest on the UWNF account for > 50% of the total occurrences in the 2 subsections; they include: o Cirsium carolinianum (79% of 14 occurrences) G5, S1 o Carex impressinervia (71% of 7 occurrences) G1G2, S1 FSC o Fothergilla major (70% of 10 occurrences) G3, S2 o Amorpha schwerinii (61% of 102 occurrences) G3, S3 • documented occurrences of 5 species-of-interest on the UWNF account for 25- 40% of the total occurrences in the 2 subsections; they include: o Ambystoma talpoideum (40% of 5 occurrences) G5, S2 o Helenium brevifolium (33% of 3 occurrences) G3G4, S1 o Helianthus laevigatus (32% of 50 occurrences) G4, S2 o Baptisia albescens (30% of 30 occurrences) G4, S2 o Tradescantia virginiana (25% of 4 occurrences) G5, S1

Plan components for ecosystem diversity identified in section 43.15 should satisfy most species diversity objectives on the UWNF. Thinning, prescribed burning, and ecosystem restoration objectives will improve and maintain habitat conditions and habitat

DRAFT connections for the species habitat groups and will maintain suitable habitat that is not currently occupied but has a likelihood of being occupied in the future by species identified as potential species-of-concern or species-of-interest. However, additional plan components are needed to contribute to the diversity of several native plant and animal species on the UWNF:

• Species within the rare community and open woodlands habitat groups, and • Species with less than 5 documented occurrences on the UWNF.

Most rare communities (those on mafic or calcareous substrates or in wetland conditions) are imbedded within broader ecological systems and will therefore benefit from management in those Systems following plan components directed at improving composition, structure, and ecological processes. Rare communities have a disproportionately large number of documented T&E, SOC, or SOI species (7 total) and an even larger number of SOC or SOI species (17 total) not documented but likely to occur on the UWNF based on their habitat preference. Rare communities, because of their small size or because they are often difficult to recognize, are often overlooked or misidentified in the field. Therefore, beyond provisions providing characteristics of ecosystem diversity, the following program management emphasis is needed to help ensure self-sustaining rare species populations within rare communities:

Program management emphasis: • Coordinate with the NC Natural Heritage Program in providing field training to identify rare Ecological Systems (Glade and Barrens, Mafic Hardpan Woodlands, Depression Swamps, and Seepage Wetlands) for all District employees especially Forester’s, Forest Technicians, and other Resource Technicians at least every 3 years.

Plan components for ecosystem diversity should especially benefit species in the Woodlands habitat group. Species in this group are sun-loving and have declined in the past due to competition from other vegetation; competition that should be reduced following ecosystem diversity objectives for prescribed burning and thinning. However, some of these species are at risk because they are found primarily in roadside habitats prone to mowing or herbicide damage or in Southeastern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodlands that have significantly declined from historic levels. Therefore, the following additional provisions, beyond those for providing characteristics of ecosystem diversity, are needed to ensure self-sustaining species populations for some species found in Woodland habitats:

Desired Condition • Schweinitz’s sunflower is restored throughout the plant’s historical range across the forest.

Objectives • Restore or reintroduce 5 to13 subpopulations of Schweinitz’s sunflower in woodlands or openings in forests over the next fifteen years.

DRAFT • Over the planning period, relocate at risk populations of Schweinitz’s sunflower adjacent to roads or railroads to sites more appropriate for long-term maintenance of the populations. • Create prairie-like openings of ½ to 2 acres in size within longleaf pine and oak- hickory restoration areas that are within the Schweinitz’s sunflower HMA. Guidelines • Roadside banks should not be mowed before flowering and seed development where Threatened, Endangered, Species of Concern, or Species of Interest occur.

Species-of-concern and species-of-interest that have been documented on less than 5 sites on the UWNF occur in all five species habitat groups (Tables 21-23). Although these species will benefit from plan components for ecosystem diversity, their risk of extirpation is aggravated by their extreme rarity and small population size. Therefore, the following additional provisions, beyond those for providing characteristics of ecosystem diversity, are needed to ensure self-sustaining species populations for these very rare species:

Guideline • Reduce impacts from all activities that might affect rare species having less than 5 known occurrences on the UWNF and maintain existing self-sustaining populations. Monitoring • Visit all documented locations of T&E species and species-of-concern having less than 5 known occurrences on the UWNF within the first 3 years of plan implementation (2007-2010) and at least once every 3 years thereafter. Visit all documented locations of species-of-interest within the first 5 years of plan implementation (2007-2010) and at least once every 3 years thereafter. Document each visit using the standard North Carolina Natural Heritage Program rare species element occurrence forms and include documentation on habitat maintenance and improvement needs. These species include: o 1 federally listed bird: the Bald Eagle o 2 species-of-concern: Piedmont Aster, Pursh’s Wild-petunia o 12 species-of-interest: Southern Anemone, Piedmont Horsebalm, Heller’s Rabbit-Tobacco, Virginia Spiderwort, Dissected Toothwort, Mole Salamander, Four-toed Salamander, Loggerhead Shrike, Mottled Duskywing, Bluff Oak, Mountain Camellia, and Prostrate Blue Violet.

• Visit all documented locations of T&E species, species-of-concern, and species of interest, except G4G5 species, during implementation of plan (2007-2022) and determine the condition of each element occurrence.

DRAFT Literature Cited

Barden, Lawrence S. 1997. Historic Prairies in the Piedmont of North and South Carolina, USA. Natural Areas Journal 17:149-152

Beers, T.W., P.E. Dress and L.C. Wensel. 1966. Aspect transformation in site productivity research. Journal of Forestry, 64: 691-693..

Brown, Mark, J. Forest Statistics for the Piedmont of North Carolina, 1990. 1991. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.

Brown, Mark, J.; Sheffield, Raymond M. 2003. Forest statistics for the Pidemont of North Carolina, 2002. Resour.Bull. SRS-86. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 61 p.

Carter, Mark. 2006. UWNF Silviculturist. Personal communication from UWNF Silviculturist.

Cowell, Charles. 1992. Historical Changes in Georgia Piedmont Forests: Human and Environmental Influences. Dissertation in Geography, University of Georgia, 1992.

Davis et.al. 2002. Vascular Flora of Piedmont Prairies: Evidence from Several Prairie Remnants. Castanea 67(1): 1-12.

Delcourt, P.A.; Delcourt, H.R. 1993. Paleoclimates, Paleovegetation, and Paleofloras during the late Quaternary. In: Flora of North America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Delcourt, H.R.; Delcourt, P.A. 1997. Pre-Columbian Native American use of fire on Southern Appalachian landscapes. Conservation Biology. 11(4): 1010-1014.

Delcourt, P.A., Delcourt, H.R. 1998. The influence of preshistoric human-set fires on oak-chestnut forests in the Southern Appalachians. Castanea 63(3): 337-345.

Dobyns, H.F. 1966. Estimating aboriginal American population: an appraisal of techniques with a new hemisphere estimate. Current Anthropology. 7: 395-416

Dobyns, H.F. 1983. Their numbers become thinned: Native American population dynamics in Eastern North America. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. 378 p.

ESRI 2002. Environmental Services Research Institute, Inc. ARCGIS

Ferretti, D.F., J.B.Miller, J.W.C.White, D.M.Etheridge, K.R.Lassey, D.C.Lowe, C.M.MacFarling Meure, M.F. Dreier, C.M.Trudinger, T.D. van Ommen, and

DRAFT R.L.Langenfelds. 2005. Unexpected Changes to the Global Methane Budget over the Past 2000 Years. Science. Vol 309. 9 September. Flahault, C.,and C.Schroter. 1910. Rapport sur la nomenclature phytogeopraphique. Proceedings of the Third Internatioonal Botanical Congress, Brussels 1:131-164.

FSH 1909.12 – Land management Planning Handbook, Chapter 40 – Science and Sustainability. National Headquarters (WO) Washington D.C.

Foote, W.H. 1846. Sketches of North Carolina, Historical and Biographical. Robert Carter, New York.. 616p.

Frost. Cecil C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States: a first approximation. Pages 70-81 in Teresa L. Pruden and Leonard A. Brennan (eds.) Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescriptioin. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 20. Tall Timbers Research Station, Talahassee, Fl.

FSH 1901.12. Land Management Planning Handbook, Chapter 40 – Science and Sustainability. Forest Service Handbook National Headquarters (WO) Washington, DC. March 23, 2005.

Hamel, Paul B.; Buckner, Edward R. 1998. How far could a squirrel travel in the treetops? A prehistory of the southern forest. In: Transactions, 63rd North American wildlife and natural resource conference. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute: 309-315.

Hosmer, D.W.; Lemeshow, S. 2000. Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 373 p.

Hughes, Ralph H. 1966. “Fire Ecology of Canebrakes.” Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. Tallahassee: Tall Timbers Research Station, 1966. 149-158.

Hutchins, Cecil C. Jr. Forest Statistics for the Piedmont of North Carolina, 1984. 1985. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. Asheville, North Carolina.

Jacobs, W.R. 1974. The tip of the iceberg: pre-Columbian Indian demography and some implications for revisionism. William and Mary Quarterly. 31: 123-133.

Juras, Phillip 1997. The Presettlement Piedmont Savanna – A model for Landscape design and Management - Thesis Chapter 5

Keys, J., Jr., C. Carpenter, S. Hooks, F. Keneig, W.H. McNab, W. Russell, and M-L Smith. 1996. Ecological Units of the Eastern United States – first approximation. Part 1: ARC INFO; Part II: Supporting Imagery; Part III; Text. CD-ROM. U.S. Forest Service, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

DRAFT

Komarek, E.V. 1964. The natural history of lightning. In: Proceedings 3rd Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference; 1964 April 9-10; Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 139-183.

Langley, S.K. 2000. History, Presettlement Vegetation, and Natural Fire Regimes of Uwharrie National Forest, Montgomery County, North Carolina. PhD.

Merrel, J.H. 1989. The Catawbas. Chelsea House Publishers, New York. 112p.

NatureServe, 2004. International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications: Uwharrie National Forest Final Report. NatureServe, 1101 Wilson Blvd., 15th floor, Arlington, VA 22209.

NOAA. 1978. Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1977. National Climatic Center. Asheville, NC.

NOAA. 2006. Satellite and Information System. www.ngdc.noaa.gov

Pyne, Stephen J. 1997. Fire in America: A cultural history of wildland and rural fire. 2nd ed. Seattle: University of Washington Press 680 p.

Rostlund, E. 1957. The myth of a natural prairie belt in Alabama: an interpretation of historical records. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 47:392-411.

Snedeker, R. 2006. NFsNC Forest Archeologist. Personal communication.

Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina

Stewart, O.C. 1963. Barriers to understanding the influence of fire by aborigines on vegetation. In: Proceedings, second annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 31-42.

TNC. 2003. The Nature Conservancy. Warms Springs Mountain Cowpasture River – Conservation Area Plan. The Nature Conservancy of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903.

TopoMetrix (1999). Oasis: TopoMetrix, Understanding Systems Inc.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. Agency white paper. Washington, D.C.

DRAFT USDA Forest Service 2002. Southern Forest Resource Assessment. Final Technical Report. GTR SRS-53

USDA Forest Service. 2003 Environmental Assessment for the treatment of Southern Pine Beetle on the Uwharrie National Forest. National Forests in the North Carolina, Asheville, NC.

Williams, M. 1992. Americans and their forests. New York: Cambridge University Press. 599 p.

DRAFT Appendix A. Mapping Ecological Systems and Potential Plant Communities on the Uwharrie National Forest: First Approximation

Introduction The purpose of this mapping effort is to quantify the distribution and abundance of potential plant communities relative to environments on the Uwharrie National Forest in order to provide a mid-level map useful for Forest Planning. Ecological systems (NatureServe 2004), groups of plant associations occurring in regions of similar physical conditions and biological potential, are numerous and varied on the Uwharrie National Forest. Sites within ecological systems may be characterized by geologic formation, landform, aspect and other physical variables that combine to form environments of varying temperature, moisture, and fertility, which are suitable to support characteristic species and forests. Using NatureServe ecological systems as a framework, we have developed a map of potential plant communities using environmental variable-based models that we believe can provide insight on the “capability” of land and can assist land managers and planners in implementing ecosystem management policies.

Methods

Map Area The mapped area consists of a 16-USGS quad area centered on the Uwharrie National Forest (the Forest). This area includes the following 1:24,000 scale quads: Asheboro, Badin, Biscoe, Candor, Eleazer, Farmer, Handy, Harrisville, Highrock, Lovejoy, Morrow Mountain, Mt. Gilead East, New London, Seagrove, Star, and Troy.

Field Data Much of the vegetation field data was obtained in 2004 from a U.S. Forest Service (USFS) contract with Alan and Allison Weakley. Briefly, the contract included: 1) the collection of species presence and abundance data from reference sites used to characterize all major and important minor plant community types on the Forest, 2) the collection of location (latitude & longitude) data on a larger number of areas to identify the range of sites that support or could potentially support plant community types on the Forest, and 3) location data for rare plant species. After visiting a sample of the Weakley’s field sites, additional field data were obtained during the summer of 2005 by Gary Kauffman (USFS botanist) and Steve Simon (USFS plant ecologist). They collected additional location data for community types and / or potential community types to augment information on site potential across the Forest. All vegetation plots were located using a global positioning system (GPS).

Grouping of Plant Communities The 15 common plant community types identified by the Weakley’s were logically grouped into 8 ecological systems / plant community groups by comparing field classifications and descriptions to those described by NatureServe (2004). Some of these groups are combinations of NatureServe ecological systems while other groups split ecological systems into their component plant associations. These groups, and the

DRAFT number of field plots associated with each, are listed in table 1 (following the text); plot locations are shown on Figure 1.

Figure 1. Location of vegetation field data points (x) on the Uwharrie National Forest (outlined) (shaded areas are administered by the USFS)

DRAFT

Database Creation and Model Application Application of the environmental variable-based plant community models required development of a spatial database for the study area. Source data were acquired from U.S. Geological Survey 10-m resolution DEMs. Edge matching and smoothing procedures were applied to all DEMs using the ArcGrid GIS to produce a seamless grid of elevations for the entire study area. This elevation grid was processed using algorithms from various sources (table 2) to produce estimates of derived terrain and environmental variables; e.g. aspect, slope gradient, landform index.

Table 2: Variables used in the Uwharrie Plant Community Models 1st Approximation (12/28/2005)

Elevation: elevation above sea level in feet derived from a 10 meter DEM with sinks filled. Source: ESRI

Aspect: Beers transformation of land surface aspect from azimuth (0-360) to cosine representation [0.00-2.00]. (Beers et.al. 1966). Source: TopoMetrix (1999)

Solar radiation: a pseudo-solar radiation derived from shaded relief represented by values ranging from 0 to 255, with 0 representing the darkest areas and 255 the brightest. The azimuth angle of the light source is set on 200 and the angle set at 45. Source: ESRI (solar radiation = HILLSHADE (elevation-grid, 200, #,shade).

Slope steepness: the percent rise in elevation from the adjacent land area. Calculated as the maximum rate of change in z value from each 10 m grid cell. Source: ESRI.

Surface curvature profile: the curvature of the ground surface in the direction of slope. Source: ESRI

Surface curvature planiform: the curvature of the ground surface perpendicular to the slope direction. Source: ESRI

Terrain shape index: the average curvature of the ground surface. A positive curvature indicates that the surface is upwardly convex. Source: ESRI

Landform Index: (LFI): An index of landform shape (site protection) and macro-scale landform. Larger number = more concave shape, more protected landform. From: McNab, W.H. 1996. Classification of local- and landscape-scale ecological types in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 39:215- 229. Source: TopoMetrix

DRAFT

Relative Slope position: a measure of the cell position along a slope in relationship to the nearest ridge and drainage. Relative slope position (Wilds 1996) uses (1) a threshold level of flow accumulation to represent slope bottom, (2) the difference between mean elevation and highest elevation in a moving window to represent ridges, and (3) flowlength to calculate distance. Values range from 0 to 1: ridges = 1, valley bottoms = 0. Source: Stephanie Wilds

Topographic Relative Moisture Index (TRMI): Based on the weighted scalar developed by Parker (1982). TRMI combines aspect, slope, slope configuration (curvature) and relative slope position. Source: Stephanie Wilds

Distance to Stream: Euclidian distance to the nearest modeled stream, regardless of stream order. Source: ESRI

A GIS was used to assign each vegetative plot to the appropriate cell in the DEMs. Environmental variables were determined for each plot by merging the location with the 10-m resolution digital elevation and environment grids. In total, 11 grids were merged with an ARC point coverage that contained approximately 1100 plot locations. A database was created that included the plot number, plant community type (Weakley’s), plant community group, and the 11 environmental characterization variables listed above.

Vegetation and Environment Relationships We selected logistic regression for developing models to predict the probability of occurrence of plant communities in differing environments. We used ordinary multiple logistic regression to determine environmental variables associated with the presence or absence of the 8 plant community groups at field sample plot locations. Both presence and absence data characterized environmental limits of occurrence. Model accuracy was evaluated using several standard measures of logistic regression performance, which included classification tables, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and selection of probability cut points using sensitivity and specificity.

Each of the 8 logistic plant community models was applied to the DEMs representing environmental, variables. The resulting 8 map layers represent the probability of occurrence, ranging from zero to 1, of each plant community group in each 10-m (33- foot, 0.2 acre) cell of the DEM grid for the 16-quad, 660,000 - acre mapped area. Typically, the centers of areas of highest probabilities were at sample plot locations, where environmental data were obtained to generate the plant community group model. Clusters of cells where the plant community group was classified as present represent regions of probabilities.

DRAFT Incorporating Geologic Formation, a surrogate for Fertility, into Model Predictions One of our interests in this mapping effort was to determine the historic distribution of longleaf pine plant communities across the Forest in order to address plant community restoration needs. Additional effort was made in the field to examine forests at the edge of the current distribution of longleaf pine on the Forest and surrounding areas. The relationship between longleaf pine, soil type, and geologic formation was evaluated at field locations where longleaf pine was found and in map features where longleaf pine was described in the USFS continuous inventory of stand condition (CISC) GIS coverage. It was clear from this analysis that longleaf pine almost never occurs in areas with high base rocks, i.e. mafic areas, and that it is most often associated with only 1 soil type – the Herndon series. The map area was therefore divided into two model sections using the break between the metamudstone – metaargillite geologic formation and the felsic metavolcanic geologic formation to define the western extent of longleaf pine, and the pattern of Herndon soil map unit abundance to define the northern extent of longleaf pine. We refer to the two model sections as the northwest section and the southeast section.

Creating a single map of Plant Community Groups Mapping of plant community groups involved combining individual models to form a single GIS coverage and establishing a boundary in the transition area between adjacent plant community groups. The boundaries often are broad and usually support more than one system. We used the stacking order feature in ArcGrid to resolve classification conflicts in areas where multiple plant community groups were predicted. All plant community group models were arranged in vertical sequence from highest, on top of the stack, to lowest predictive power. Themes in ArcGrid at the top of the stack take precedence over those below, so in areas of overlap, the upper themes in descending order obstruct the view of those below. Using an iterative process, stacking order and probability cut points were adjusted until the pattern of plant community groups appeared reasonable and closely matched classifications made at field plots. The minimum map unit was set at 1 acre. This process was used twice – once for the southeast section with all eight-plant community groups being included, and once for the northwest section with only seven plant community groups being included, i.e. the longleaf pine model was not included in the northwest section. A single map of plant community groups was created by joining together the northwest and southeast sections.

Results We identified 8 common plant community groups on the Forest that could be modeled using environmental variables and 4 rare plant communities that we represented by points based on field inventories. The map of plant community groups is an approximation of the distribution and abundance of pre-settlement plant communities. Statistics and significant variables associated with development of the models are presented in Table 3. The areas under the ROC curves all exceed 0.70, which suggests the models have acceptable to excellent discrimination capability (Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000). The high ROC values of most logistic models suggest that ecological systems described by NatureServe, some of which were combined or disaggregated for this study, are associated with sites having unique environmental characteristics.

DRAFT

The map of plant community groups illustrates the strong influence of topography on the distribution of site potentials and plant species on the Forest. For example, Xeric Oak communities that are characterized by chestnut oak dominance (NatureServe) are mapped only on exposed ridges, especially at higher elevations; dry oak-hickory characterized by southern red oak is distributed along the convex portions of hillsides and low ridges and occur adjacent to Dry-mesic oak-hickory in the concave draws. Similarly, shortleaf pine- oak is distributed predominantly on steep slopes with a southerly exposure while mesic hardwood slopes are on more protected steep slopes. Finally, alluvial and mesic forests are mapped along streams and toe slopes and longleaf pine occupies topography similar to dry-oak hickory but is restricted primarily to the southeastern portion of the Forest.

Discussion This product is a mid-level map for use in Forest Planning and should therefore be evaluated in the context of the intended analysis application and the management decision the data and analysis are intended to support, e.g. ecological sustainability analysis. This evaluation should consider the needs of the desired level of precision (i.e., the level of thematic detail) with the desired level of accuracy and should provide the basis for evaluating the level of uncertainty that is acceptable to support particular management decisions at the forest planning level.

Map units were further divided by incorporating important differences in soil chemistry that may affect site fertility. The Wynot, Enon, and Cullen soils formed in clayey residuum weathered from mafic rocks or mixed mafic and felsic crystalline rocks are less acidic than other more common soils on the Forest. This characteristic was used to differentiate between the “basic” oak hickory communities that could likely support chalk maple, shagbark hickory, redbud, and cedar and those oak-hickory communities where these species are not likely to occur. This was done only for those areas where soil mapping was complete and map units digitized, i.e. lands administered by the USFS on the Uwharrie National Forest.

Table 3 – Environmental variables included in plant community group models Xeric SL Dry D.mesic Mesic Mesic- Small Longleaf Oak Pine- Oak- Oak- HW Alluvial Stream Pine Oak Hick. Hick. slope Environmental variable

Elevation 2 + 3 - - - 2 - 2 - 4 + -

Aspect 4 - - 5 + 4 + 5 - - - 5 +

Solar radiation - - 4 - - - 6 - 2 + 6 -

Slope steepness - - - 5 + 1 + 1 - 5 + 2 -

Surface curvature profile ------

Surface curvature planiform - - - - 4 - - - -

Terrain shape index ------

Landform index 3 + 2 + 6 - 2 - - 4 + - 1 -

Relative slope position - - 3 + 3 - - 5 + 3 - 7 -

DRAFT

Terrain moisture index - 1 - 1 - - 3 + - - 3 -

Distance to stream 1 + 2 - 1 - - 3 - 1 - 4 -

ROC 0.97 0.99 0.82 0.77 0.92 0.94 0.93 0.84

Whole numbers in columns indicate the relative level of importance of significant variables in each plant community group model and sign of the coefficient. ROC, or receiver operating characteristic, is a plot of sensitivity over 1 minus specificity: sensitivity is a measure of accuracy of predicting on occurrence and specificity is a measure of predicting nonoccurrence. A model with an area under the ROC curve > 0.7 is considered to have acceptable discrimination capability; models with ROC values > 0.8 are considered to be excellent (Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000).

Table 4 – Plant community groups on the Uwharrie National Forest and Vicinity

Plant Community Group Total area Federal land no. acres percent no. acres percent

Xeric Oak Forest 20,500 3.3 3,050 6.0

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Woodland 172 0.04 94 0.2

Dry Oak-Hickory 217,800 35.0 21,480 41.9

Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory 188,400 30.3 16,200 31.6

Mesic Hardwood Slope 3,655 0.6 44 0.3

Small Stream Forest 1,915 0.3 140 0.3

Alluvial & Mesic Forest 50,480 8.1 2,560 5.0

Longleaf Pine Woodland 138,600 22.3 7,700 15.1 ______

Total 621,600 51,270 8.2

DRAFT

Table 1. Point data used to develop Uwharrie Plant Community models PLANT Simon/ Total COMMUNITY ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM PLANT COMMUNITY Weakley’s Kauffman Data GROUP MAP Pts. UNIT (Weakley’) field plots Plots 1/ 2/

Southern Piedmont Dry Oak-(Pine) Piedmont Monadnock Xeric Oak Forest Forest Forest 45 195240

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Southern Piedmont Dry Oak-(Pine) Shortleaf Pine-Oak Woodland Forest Savanna 6 0 6

Dry Oak-Hickory Southern Piedmont Dry Oak-(Pine) Forest Forest Dry Oak-Hickory 96 124 240 Dry Basic Oak-Hickory 16

Dry-Mesic Oak- Southern Piedmont Dry Oak-(Pine) Hickory Forest Forest Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory 55 140 221 Dry-Mesic Basic Oak- Hickory 26

Mesic Hardwood Slope Forest Southern Piedmont Mesic Forest Basic Mesic Forest 6 20 26

Mesic and Alluvial Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Southern Piedmont Mesic Forest Forest 9 143 182 Southern Piedmont Large Floodplain Forest Piedmont Alluvial Forest 27 Piedmont Bottomland Forest 1 Piedmont Levee Forest 2

Southern Piedmont Small Floodplain Piedmont Small Stream Small Stream Forest and Riparian Forest Forest 22 47 70 Piedmont/Coastal Plain Heath 1

Longleaf Pine Southeastern Interior Longleaf Pine Piedmont Longleaf Pine Woodland Woodland Forest 20 6689 Piedmont LL Pine Seepage Bog 3 NOT MODELED Represented by Southern Piedmont Glade and Basic Piedmont Bluff points Barren Glade 1 1 19 Represented by Southern Piedmont Mafic Hardpan points Woodland Xeric Hardpan Forest 8 1 9

Represented by Southern Piedmont/Ridge and Upland Depression points Valley Upland Depression Swamp Swamp Forest 6 2 11 Represented by Southern Piedmont Seepage Piedmont Boggy points Wetland Streamhead 6 5 50

1/ field plots (GPS and veg. Type), GPS and veg. Type derived from soils (alluvial only), NC Heritage community EOs, and extrapolations. 2/ includes additional data points from NC Natural Heritage Program Community Element Occurrences

DRAFT Appendix B: Ecological System descriptions and ecological condition evaluations

Format of write-up

Derivation: The data source used to define the reference condition. Environment: Topographic setting, slope position and steepness, soil drainage class and texture, geologic substrate, temperature-moisture-fertility relative to other types. Disturbance regime: Natural disturbance processes and fire regime. Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: The approximate number of acres that could occur on the UWNF derived from environmental modeling, total existing acres, and primary location. Potential abundance relative to potential in the surrounding 4 counties: The proportion of the potential acres on the UWNF relative to potential acres within Montgomery, Randolph, Stanley, and Davidson counties. Composition and structure (reference condition): A description of the overstory, midcanopy, and understory tree, shrub, and herb structure (canopy closure and gap size) and composition (dominant and characteristic species) based primarily on NatureServe (2004) and/or Schafale and Weakley (1990). Species common and scientific names are listed in Table 2 following all descriptions. These descriptions are considered an approximation of composition and structure before European settlement and include the effects of natural and Indian-caused disturbances such as fire. Rare species documented in this ecological system: Federally listed threatened or endangered species, potential species-of-concern, and species-of-interest that occur or may occur in this ecological system based upon habitat preference. Habitat preference is defined as one of the following:

• obligate – species is documented in only one ecological system and is likely self- sustaining only in habitat conditions found in this type – or species is wetland dependent and self-sustaining in only 2 ecological systems • optimal – preferred habitat for a species that is self-sustaining in this and 1-2 other ecological systems • suitable – species is self-sustaining in this and other ecological systems • marginal – species can occur but habitat conditions are more suitable in other ecological systems

Ecological condition benchmarks within the potential extent of this system: format described in section 43.12. For this analysis, the potential extent is considered optimal.

DRAFT Southeastern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodland

Derivation: Piedmont Longleaf Pine Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Southeastern Interior Longleaf Pine Woodland Ecological System (NatureServe 2004). Environment: Flats and slopes of low, rolling topography over felsic rock on very deep, often very stony, well-drained soils with moderate permeability. Occasionally on steeper, south-facing slopes. Some of the drier sites on the Uwharrie NF and similar to sites supporting Dry Oak-Hickory ecological systems. Disturbance regime: Exposed low ridges and flats somewhat susceptible to disturbance by high winds and limited lightening. Disturbance by fire highly variable from pre- European settlement till present day. Extensive burning by American Indians before European settlement likely continued by early settlers and augmented by a moderately dense herbaceous herb layer and continuity of landscapes or “fire compartments.” Lack of fire, conversion of land to agriculture, and old-field abandonment, has occurred since this period. Fire regime condition class I (0-35 year return interval; surface fires of mixed severity). Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: Outside Streamside forests approximately 8,300 acres potential, 1,730 acres currently dominated by longleaf pine. Primarily in the southeastern and south-central portion of the Forest. Common near Troy, NC. Abundance relative to the potential in the surrounding 4 counties: 10.4% of 73,300 potential acres. Composition and structure (reference condition): Multi-aged woodland (25%-60% tree cover) with treeless canopy gaps occasionally as large as 1/4 acre in size; ½ to 2 acres in size on sites suitable for Schweinitz’s sunflower. Canopy dominated by longleaf pine with occasional shortleaf pine and oaks or codominated by longleaf and shortleaf pine with occasional oaks. Characteristic hardwood associates may include: post oak, southern red oak and blackjack oak. Open (< 10% cover) midcanopy and shrub layer; characteristic species would include hillside blueberry, New Jersey tea, and common chinquapin. The herb layer is nearly continuous, diverse and includes characteristic species such as little bluestem, splitbeard bluestem, Virginia goat's-rue, yellow Indiangrass, poverty oat-grass, silky oat-grass, southern bracken, licorice goldenrod, Maryland goldenaster, leafy elephant's-foot, hyssopleaf eupatorium, late eupatorium, threadleaf coreopsis, common stargrass, helmet flower, starved witch grass, and forked witch grass. Rare species documented in this Ecological System: Name Status 1/ Habitat preference red-cockaded woodpecker Federally Endangered optimal habitat in system Schweinitz’s sunflower Federally Endangered optimal habitat in system smooth sunflower potential SOI optimal habitat in system , obligate? thin-pod white wild indigo potential SOI suitable habitat in system Carolina thistle potential SOI suitable habitat in system 1/ SOI = Species of Interest

DRAFT Ecological condition benchmarks within the optimal extent of this system: Key Factors Ecological Condition Benchmark Subject to (Percent of Optimal) Current Current Management Indicator Very Good Fair Poor Condition Rating Control good Species Percent of acreage > 75% 55%-75% 30%-55% < 30% 23% Poor Composition dominated by longleaf pine Canopy Percent of acreage > 75% 55%-75% 30%-55% < 30% 7% 2/ Poor Structure at desired canopy closure 1/ Canopy Percent of acreage with Structure canopy gaps ½ to 2 acres in > 75% 55-75% 30-55% < 30% unknown unknown size Percent of acreage Fire Regime burned at least twice > 75% 55%-75% 30%-55% < 30% 17% Poor in the last decade Abundance of Percent of acreage reference at desired condition for all > 50% 30%-50% 10%-30% < 15% 3% 3/ Poor condition three indicators above 1/ desired canopy closure is 25%-60% 2/ in Botanical SIA or > 80 years in age , 3/ occurs only in Botanical SIA

Xeric Oak Forest

Derivation: Piedmont Monadnock Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Southern Piedmont Dry Oak-(Pine) Forest Ecological System (NatureServe 2004). Environment: Exposed high ridges and knolls (commonly called Monadnocks), mostly over felsic or other highly resistant rock, on well-drained, moderately permeable, extremely stony and extremely boulder soils. Some of the hottest and driest sites on the Uwharrie NF. Disturbance regime: Susceptible to disturbance by high winds and lightning but fire does not carry well in the typically sparse herb layer and rocky soil surface. Canopy gaps likely more frequent than other ecological systems. Fire regime condition class I (0-35 year return interval; surface fires of mixed severity). Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: Approximately 2,900 acres potential, 1,750 acres existing. Most common in the Badin Lake area, Birched Wilderness, and Woods Run area. Abundance relative to the potential in the surrounding 4 counties: 30% of 9,650 acres potential. Composition and structure (Reference condition): Patchy canopy dominated by chestnut oak with canopy gaps less than ¼ acre in size. Common associates may include: white oak, post oak, southern red oak, pignut hickory, and shortleaf pine. Patchy and open midcanopy dominated by sourwood, and blackgum. Scattered shrub layer includes characteristic species such as: hillside blueberry, deerberry, and black huckleberry. Sparse (< 30% cover) herb layer includes characteristic species such as pipsissewa, woodland Tick-trefoil, little bluestem, and Virginia goat’s rue. Rare species documented in this Ecological System: Species common name Status 1/ Habitat preference Schweinitz’s sunflower Federally Endangered marginal habitat in system American barberry potential SOC optimal habitat in system large witch alder potential SOC suitable habitat in system Georgia aster potential SOC suitable habitat in system

DRAFT

Indian physic potential SOI obligate of system Piedmont indigo bush potential SOC optimal habitat in system narrow-leaved aster potential SOI optimal habitat in system Chapman’s redtop potential SOI optimal habitat in system thin-pod white wild indigo potential SOI suitable habitat in system eastern prairie blue wild indigo potential SOI suitable habitat in system thick-pod white wild indigo potential SOI suitable habitat in system crested coralroot potential SOI suitable habitat in system Carolina thistle potential SOI suitable habitat in system sharp-shinned hawk potential SOI suitable habitat in system 1/ SOC = Species of Concern, SOI = Species of Interest

Ecological condition benchmarks within the optimal extent of this system: Key Factors Ecological Condition Benchmark Subject to (Percent of Optimal) Current Current Management Indicator Very Good Fair Poor Condition Rating Control good Species Percent of acreage > 85% 70%-85% 50%-70% < 50% 15% Poor Composition dominated by chestnut oak Canopy Percent of acreage > 85% 70%-85% 50%-70% < 50% 47% 2/ Poor Structure at desired canopy closure 1/ Percent of acreage Fire Regime burned at least twice > 85% 70%-85% 50%-70% < 50% 15% Poor in the last 15 years All above on Percent of acreage Same site at or near reference condition > 75% 50%-75% 25%-50% < 25% 3% 3/ Poor especially understory species 1/ desired canopy closure is 60%-80%, 2/ Oak-dominated CISC types > 60 years in age , 3/ occurs only in Botanical SIA

Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (felsic)

Derivation: Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990), Quercus falcata- Quercus alba - Cary alba / Oxydendroum arboreum / Vaccinium stamineum Forest (NatureServe 2004). Environment: Dry topographic positions, (convex upper slopes, mid-slopes, and low ridges) over felsic rock on moderately deep to very deep, well drained, soil with moderate permeability; often very stony, extremely stony, or extremely boulder soils. Some of the drier sites on the Uwharrie NF. Disturbance regime: Wind disturbance, although not commonly severe, in combination with old tree mortality promotes canopy gaps. Burning by American Indians likely impacted these sites although fire would have been of low impact in the typically sparse herb layer. Fire regime condition class I (0-35 year return interval; surface fires of mixed severity). Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: Outside Streamside Forests approximately 19,200 acres potential, 10,370 acres existing. This is the most abundant, non-successional ecological system on the Forest and is limited only on the eastern edge of Badin Lake and in the southeastern portion of the Forest where it is replaced by Longleaf Pine Woodlands. Abundance relative to the potential in the surrounding 4 counties: 19% of 102,700 acres potential.

DRAFT Composition and structure (desired condition): Relatively open canopy (60%-80% cover) with small (1/2 acre) to large (2 acre) canopy gaps. Forest dominated by dry site oaks or a mixture of oaks and up to 30% cover of shortleaf pine. Southern red oak, white oak, or post oak are the dominant species. Other characteristic trees include: chestnut oak, blackjack oak, black oak, scarlet oak, pignut hickory, mockernut hickory, and red hickory. Typical midcanopy trees include sourwood dogwood, and blackgum. Shrubs range from sparse to moderately dense, and may include hillside blueberry, deerberry, hairy highbush blueberry, and southern blueberry. The herb layer, although generally sparse, can be well developed in canopy gaps. Herbs include: rattlesnake plantain, hyssopleaf eupatorium, inland roundleaf eupatorium, Maryland goldenaster, licorice goldenrod, common stargrass, tick-trefoils, broomsedge, little bluestem, and yellow Indiangrass. Rare species documented in this Ecological System: Species common name Status 1/ Habitat preference Schweinitz’s sunflower Federally Endangered suitable habitat in system witch alder potential SOC suitable habitat in system winged witchgrass potential SOI optimal habitat in system Piedmont indigo bush potential SOI optimal habitat in system thin-pod white wild indigo potential SOI suitable habitat in system smooth sunflower potential SOI suitable habitat in system sharp-shinned hawk potential SOI suitable habitat in system 1/ SOC = Species of Concern, SOI = Species of Interest

Ecological condition benchmarks within the optimal extent of this system: Key Factors Ecological Condition Benchmark Subject to (Percent of Optimal) Current Current Management Indicator Very Good Fair Poor Condition Rating Control good Species Percent of acreage Composition dominated by oaks and Fair to hickories or these species > 75% 55%-75% 30%-55% < 30% 55% Good codominating with shortleaf pine Canopy Percent of acreage > 75% 55%-75% 30%-55% < 30% 42% 2/ Fair Structure at desired canopy closure 1/ Canopy Percent of acreage with Structure canopy gaps ½ to 2 acres in > 75% 55%-75% 30%-55% < 30% unknown unknown size Percent of acreage Fire Regime burned at least twice > 75% 55%-75% 30%-55% < 30% 4% Poor in the last 15 years All above on Percent of acreage Same site at or near reference condition > 50% 30%-50% 10%-30% < 15% 10% 3/ Poor especially understory species 1/ desired canopy closure is 60%-80% 2/ Oak dominated stands > 40 years in age , 3/ occurs only in Botanical SIA

DRAFT Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (mafic)

Derivation: Basic Oak-Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990), Quercus alba - Cary glare - Fraxinus Americana / Acer leucoderme / Vitis rotundifolia Forest; Quercus alba - Quercus stellata - Cary carolinae-septentrionalis / Acer leucoderme - Cercis canadensis Forest (NatureServe 2004). Environment: Dry topographic positions, (convex upper slopes, mid-slopes, and ridges) over mafic rock on moderately deep to very deep, very stony to more often extremely boulder, well-drained soils. Some of the drier sites on the UWNF and similar to Dry Oak-Hickory felsic, and Longleaf Pine Woodland. Disturbance regime: Wind disturbance, although not commonly severe, in combination with old tree mortality promotes canopy gaps. Burning by American Indians in low land areas likely impacted these sites although fire would have been of low impact in the typically sparse herb layer and rocky soil surface. Fire regime condition class I (0-35 year return interval; surface fires of mixed severity). Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: Outside Streamside Forest, approximately 2,200 acres potential, 1,300 acres existing.. Limited primarily to the eastern edge of FS lands at Badin Lake, near Big Creek east of highway 1301 and in the southeastern portion of the Birkheads. Most common in the Badin area. Abundance relative to the potential in the surrounding 4 counties: 18% of 12,200 acres potential. Composition and structure (desired condition): Relatively open to closed canopy with small (1/2 acre) to large (2 acre) canopy gaps. White oak is generally the most abundant tree. Other characteristic overstory trees include: chestnut oak, post oak, southern red oak, white ash, and pignut hickory. Other species in the canopy and subcanopy include: Carolina shagbark hickory, shortleaf pine, blackjack oak, chalk maple, redbud, and southern red cedar. The shrub and herb layers are generally sparse and may include the following species: farkleberry, whorled milkweed, northern oak grass, and pipssisiwa. The vine layer may be well-developed, and muscadine is common. Rare species documented in this Ecological System: Species common name Status 1/ Habitat preference Schweinitz’s sunflower Federally Endangered suitable habitat in system Piedmont indigo bush potential SOI suitable habitat in system American-ipecac potential SOI suitable habitat in system crested coralroot potential SOI suitable habitat in system sharp-shinned hawk potential SOI suitable habitat in system 1/ SOC = Species of Concern, SOI = Species of Interest

DRAFT

All above on Percent of acreage Same site at or near reference condition > 75% 50%-75% 25%-50% < 25% 13% 3/ Poor especially understory species 1/ desired canopy closure is 60%-80%, 2/ Oak-dominated CISC types > 70 years in age , 3/ occurs only in Botanical SIA

Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory (felsic)

Derivation: Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Southern Piedmont Dry Oak-(Pine) Forest Ecological System (NatureServe 2004). Environment: Moderately sheltered topographic positions, (concave mid- and lower slopes, narrow draws) on moderately deep to very deep, often very stony to extremely boulder, well-drained soils with moderate permeability, over felsic rock. Disturbance regime: Wind disturbance ameliorated over more exposed sites but aids in creation of canopy gaps. Burning by American Indians probably had little impact because fire would have carried quickly through the moderately dense herb layer. Fire regime condition class I (0-35 year return interval; surface fires of mixed severity). Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: Outside Streamside Forests, approximately 9,150 acres potential, 6,670 acres existing. This is the second most abundant non-successional ecological system on the Forest and is limited only on the eastern edge of Badin Lake. Abundance relative to the potential in the surrounding 4 counties: 21% of 46,280 acres potential. Composition and structure (desired condition): Relatively open canopy with small (1/2 acre) to large (2 acre) canopy gaps. Forest dominated by mixtures of oaks and hickories, with white oak the most common species along with northern red oak, black oak, mockernut hickory, red hickory, and pignut hickory. Shortleaf pine may be common but not a dominant component. Red maple, Sweetgum, and tulip poplar present in some stands but not in abundance. Typical midcanopy trees include American holly, sourwood, dogwood, and blackgum. Shrubs range from sparse to moderately dense, and may include downy arrowwood, deerberry, hillside blueberry, blue huckleberry, and American strawberry-bush. The herb layer, although generally sparse, can be well developed in canopy gaps. Herbs include: rattlesnake plantain, woodland tick-trefoil, rattlesnake hawkweed, broomsedge, and little bluestem. Rare species documented in this Ecological System: Species common name Status 1/ Habitat preference witch alder potential SOC suitable habitat in system winged witchgrass potential SOI optimal habitat in system Piedmont indigo bush potential SOI suitable habitat in system Piedmont horsebalm potential SOI suitable habitat in system sharp-shinned hawk potential SOI suitable habitat in system 1/ SOC = Species of Concern, SOI = Species of Interest

DRAFT

forests Canopy Percent of acreage > 75% 55%-75% 30%-55% < 30% 51% 2/ Fair Structure at desired canopy closure 1/ Percent of acreage Fire Regime burned at least twice > 75% 55%-75% 30%-55% < 30% 9% Poor in the last 20 years All above on Percent of acreage Same site at or near reference condition > 50% 30%-50% 10%-30% < 15% 11% 3/ Poor especially understory species 1/ desired canopy closure is 60%-90% 2/ Oak dominated stands > 40 years in age , 3/ occurs only in Botanical SIA

Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory (mafic)

Derivation: Basic Oak-Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990), Quercus alba - Cary ovata / Cercis Canadensis Forest; Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Carya glabra / Viburnum rafinesquianum / Viola tripartita Forest (NatureServe 2004). Environment: Moderately sheltered topographic positions, (concave mid- and lower slopes, narrow draws) on moderately deep to very deep, very stony to more often extremely boulder, well-drained soils over mafic rock. Disturbance regime: Wind disturbance ameliorated over more exposed sites but aids in creation of canopy gaps. Burning by American Indians likely impacted these sites but would have little impact because fire would have carried quickly through the moderate herb layer or poorly through the rocky soil surface. Fire regime condition class I (0-35 year return interval; surface fires of mixed severity). Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: Outside Streamside Forests, approximately 820 acres potential, 625 acres existing. Limited primarily to the eastern edge of FS lands at Badin Lake, near Big Creek east of highway 1301 and in the southeastern portion of the Birkheads. Most common in the Badin area. Abundance relative to the potential in the surrounding 4 counties: 17% of 4,985 acres potential Composition and structure (desired condition): Closed canopy with small (1/2 acre) to large (2 acre) canopy gaps and moderately well-developed subcanopy, shrub, and herbaceous layers with about 25% total cover per stratum. Dominated by white oak or white oak and shagbark hickory in combination with other characteristic species of oak and hickory such as: post oak, chestnut oak, black oak, mockernut hickory, and pignut hickory. Red maple, Sweetgum, and tulip poplar may be present but not in abundance. Other species in the canopy and subcanopy include: redbud, winged elm, and shortleaf pine. Herbs include: ebony spleenwort, Carolina supplejack, black-edge sedge, Christmas fern, rattlesnake fern, and common foamflower. Rare species documented in this Ecological System: Species common name Status 1/ Habitat preference Carolina alumroot potential SOC optimal habitat in system Piedmont indigo bush potential SOI suitable habitat in system Pursh’s wild petunia potential SOI obligate of system crested coralroot potential SOI suitable habitat in system American-ipecac potential SOI suitable habitat in system Carolina thistle potential SOI suitable habitat in system sharp-shined hawk potential SOI suitable habitat in system 1/ SOC = Species of Concern, SOI = Species of Interest

DRAFT Ecological condition benchmarks within the optimal extent of this system: Key Factors Ecological Condition Benchmark Subject to (Percent of Optimal) Current Current Management Indicator Very Good Fair Poor Condition Rating Control good Species Percent of acreage Composition dominated by oak-hickory > 85% 70%-85% 50%-70% < 50% 74% Good forests Canopy Percent of acreage > 85% 70%-85% 50%-70% < 50% 54% 2/ Fair Structure at desired canopy closure 1/ Percent of acreage Fire Regime burned at least twice > 85% 70%-85% 50%-70% < 50% 10% Poor in the last 20 years All above on Percent of acreage Same site at or near reference condition > 75% 50%-75% 25%-50% < 25% 14% 3/ Poor especially understory species 1/ desired canopy closure is 60%-90%, 2/ Oak-dominated CISC types > 70 years in age , 3/ occurs only in Botanical SIA

Southern Piedmont Mesic Forest

Derivation: Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990), Southern Piedmont Mesic Forests (NatureServe 2004). Environment: Sheltered topographic positions (concave lower slopes, steep north- facing slopes, narrow draws) on moderately deep to very deep, moderately well to well- drained soils, often with higher pH. Disturbance regime: Severe wind storms, although rare, aid in creation of canopy gaps. Burning of bottomlands by American Indians to maintain open conditions for tending agricultural crops likely impacted sites in lower slope positions. However, because this ecological system occurs in moist and topographically sheltered sites, fire occurred only rarely and with low intensity beginning with European settlement and continuing to the present period. Fire regime condition classes I (0-35 year return interval; surface fires of mixed severity) and V (200 year return interval, stand replacement and mixed severity). Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: Outside Streamside Forests, approximately 920 acres potential, 320 acres existing. This ecological system is scattered across the Forest but more common in the Badin area, and near Woods Run, Island Creek, and the Peakin area. Abundance relative to the potential in the surrounding 4 counties: 6.5% of 14,500 acres potential Composition and structure (desired condition): Closed, mature (> 70 years in age) canopy dominated by mesophytic trees. American beech is nearly always present. Other characteristic species include northern red oak, tulip poplar and red maple. White ash and shagbark hickory occur on higher pH soils. Typical understory trees include dogwood, and sourwood on more acidic soils and chalk maple, painted buckeye, and hop- hornbeam on more basic soils. The herb layer is dense with indicators of higher pH soils including: black cohosh, wild ginger, maidenhair fern, bloodroot and those indicators of lower pH soils including: Christmas fern, woodland tick-trefoil, common foamflower, common alumroot, fairywand, beechdrops, and rattlesnake fern.

DRAFT Rare species documented in this Ecological System: Species common name Status 1/ Habitat preference Piedmont aster potential SOC obligate of system ravine sedge potential SOC optimal habitat in system Carolina alumroot potential SOC optimal habitat in system dissected toothwort potential SOI obligate of system American bittersweet potential SOI obligate of system Virginia spiderwort potential SOI obligate of system piedmont indigo bush potential SOI optimal habitat in system silver-haired bat potential SOI optimal habitat in system warbling vireo potential SOI optimal habitat in system Carolina thistle potential SOI suitable habitat in system Piedmont horsebalm potential SOI suitable habitat in system sharp-shinned hawk potential SOI suitable habitat in system 1/ SOC = Species of Concern, SOI = Species of Interest

Ecological condition benchmarks within the optimal extent of this system: Key Factors Ecological Condition Benchmark Subject to (Percent of Optimal) Current Current Management Indicator Very Good Fair Poor Condition Rating Control good Species Percent of acreage Composition dominated by American > 85% 70%-85% 50%-70% < 50% 45% Poor beech and other trees characteristic of mesic sites Species Percent of acreage with less > 85% 70%-85% 50%-70% < 50% 68% Fair Composition than 10% NNIS cover Canopy Percent of acreage > 85% 70%-85% 50%-70% < 50% 28% 2/ Fair Structure at desired canopy closure 1/ All above on Percent of acreage Same site at or near reference condition > 75% 50%-75% 25%-50% < 25% 11% 3/ Poor especially understory species 1/ desired canopy closure is 80%-100%, 2/ Stands > 70 years in age, 3/ one-half of stands in Botanical SIA

Streamside Forest

Derivation: One-hundred foot zone adjacent to perennial streams plus adjacent floodplain / alluvial soils; this is the estimate of the zone of stream influence (humidity, habitat adjacency) on adjacent forests and the influence of adjacent forests on streams i.e. the capability of adjacent forests to provide trees capable of adding large woody debris for hydrologic stability and in stream fish habitat; Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest, Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest, Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990); Piedmont Small Stream Forest (Schafale and Weakley 2005); Southern Piedmont Large Floodplain Forest Ecological System, Southern Piedmont Small Floodplain and Riparian Forest Ecological Systems. (NatureServe 2004). Also includes concepts from: Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (mafic and felsic), Mesic Forests, Dry Oak-Hickory Forest, and Longleaf Pine Woodland. Environment: Topographically sheltered, Moist lowlands, adjacent to perennial streams/rivers on moderately deep to very deep, somewhat poorly to well-drained soils; some are very stony to extremely boulder.

DRAFT Disturbance regime: Many sites frequently to occasionally flooded; most sites are seldom to never flooded but are adjacent to flood zones. Burning of bottomlands by American Indians to maintain open conditions for tending agricultural crops was very likely to have impacted these sites to a great extent, by excluding most tree, shrub, and herb species for many centuries. However, because this ecological system occurs in moist and topographically sheltered sites, fire occurred only rarely and with low intensity beginning with European settlement and continuing to the present period. Fire regime condition classes I (0-35 year return interval; surface fires of mixed severity) and V (200 year return interval, stand replacement and mixed severity). Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: Approximately 6,900 acres delineated. This ecological system occurs across the Forest but is most prominent adjacent to the Uwharrie River, Moccasin Creek, upper Little Creek, Cheek Creek, and the upper reaches of the Little River south of Nancy’s Mountain. Abundance relative to the potential in the surrounding 4 counties: 10% of 70,000 acres potential. Composition and structure (desired condition): Streamside Forests are a complex of 4 ecological systems that are centered on Large Floodplain and Small Floodplain - Riparian Forest ecological systems. These alluvial influenced systems comprise 23% (1,600 acres) of the complex. Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forests, which are adjacent to these systems, comprise 74% (5,110 acres) of the Streamside Forest zone but are seldom influenced directly by alluvial processes. Less than 4% (190 acres) of the zone includes Dry Oak Hickory Forests and Longleaf Pine Woodlands. These systems are described in detail at the beginning of this subsection.

In the floodplains of small to medium-sized streams, where flooding and alluvial processes have some, but limited, influence on vegetation, the canopy, subcanopy, shrub, and herbaceous layers are often well-developed. Widespread species such as sweetgum and tulip poplar may be common along with upland species as well as characteristic alluvial species such as sycamore and river birch. Other characteristic species may include: Common spicebush and common jack-in-the-pulpit. These forests may also be dominated by American beech, white oak, red oak, and green ash with a fairly dense, streamside shrub layer that includes ti-ti and mountain laurel, and an herb layer dominated by galax with wood anemone, northern green-and-gold, yellow yam, Christmas fern, and sedges.

In floodplain terraces and levees along larger streams and rivers the forest canopy is nearly complete to somewhat open and dominated by tulip poplar, sweetgum with water oak, sycamore, river birch, loblolly pine, and cherrybark oak. The understory is dominated by ironwood, silverbell, and common pawpaw. Giant cane often forms dense thickets. Species characteristics in the herb layer include: false nettle, Chrismas fern, Jack-in-the-pulpit, Virginia wild-rye, bluestem goldenrod, and slender spikegrass. Vines are frequently prominent, including poison ivy, Virginia creeper, crossvine, and wild grape. Aquatic and emergent communities of active and abandoned beaver ponds or similar small, man-made impoundments or floodplain pools are imbedded within this ecological system. These areas may contain the following shrubs: button bush, and Swamp rose, or floating or submergent aquatics herbs such as: green arrow-arum, water

DRAFT lily, cowlily, hornwort, watermilfoil, pondweed, and arrowhead. These communities may be subject to severe disturbance from flooding at irregular intervals. Rare species documented in this Ecological System: Species common name Status 1/ Habitat preference Yadkin river goldenrod potential SOC obligate of system Rafinesque’s big-eared bat potential SOC obligate of system Eastern small-footed myotis potential SOC obligate of system ravine sedge potential SOC optimal habitat in system witch-alder potential SOC optimal habitat in system Piedmont horsebalm potential SOI obligate of system heartleaf plantain potential SOI obligate of system bluff oak potential SOI obligate of system Canby’s bulrush potential SOI obligate of system hedge nettle potential SOI obligate of system piedmont indigo bush potential SOI optimal habitat in system silver-haired bat potential SOI optimal habitat in system warbling vireo potential SOI optimal habitat in system sharp-shinned hawk potential SOI suitable habitat in system mountain camellia potential SOI suitable habitat in system 1/ SOC = Species of Concern, SOI = Species of Interest

Ecological condition benchmarks within the optimal extent of forests directly influenced by alluvial processes in this system: Key Factors Ecological Condition Benchmark Subject to (Percent of Optimal) Current Current Management Indicator Very Good Fair Poor Condition Rating Control good Species Percent of acreage Composition dominated by Sycamore, River birch, Sweetgum, > 85% 70%-85% 50%-70% < 50% 32% Poor Tulip poplar, Cherrybark oak, or Loblolly Pine Species Percent of acreage with less Composition than 10% exotic species > 85% 70%-85% 50%-70% < 50% 32% Poor cover Canopy Percent of acreage > 85% 70%-85% 50%-70% < 50% 56% 2/ Fair Structure at desired canopy closure 1/ Hydrologic Percent of acreage with > 85% 70%-85% 50%-70% < 50% ≈ 75% Good Regime unaltered hydrology All above on Percent of acreage Same site at or near reference condition > 75% 50%-75% 25%-50% < 25% 7% 3/ Poor especially understory species 1/ desired canopy closure is 80%-100%, 2/ Stands > 70 years in age, 3/ occurs only in Botanical SIA

Ecological condition benchmarks within the optimal extent of forests not directly influenced by alluvial processes in this system: Key Factors Ecological Condition Benchmark Subject to (Percent of Optimal) Current Current Management Indicator Very Good Fair Poor Condition Rating Control good Species Percent of acreage Composition dominated by oaks and > 75% 55%-75% 30%-55% < 30% 60% Good hickories

DRAFT

Canopy Percent of acreage > 75% 55%-75% 30%-55% < 30% 42% 2/ Fair Structure at desired canopy closure 1/ Percent of acreage Fire Regime burned at least twice > 75% 55%-75% 30%-55% < 30% 18% Poor in the last 20 years All above on Percent of acreage Same site at or near reference condition > 50% 30%-50% 10%-30% < 15% 10% 3/ Poor especially understory species 1/ desired canopy closure is 60%-80% 2/ Oak-hickory CISC types > 70 years in age , 3/ occurs only in Botanical SIA

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Woodland

Derivation: Pinus echinata-Quercus stellata-Quercus marilandica / Andropogon gyrans –Chrysopsis mariana Woodland: Southern Piedmont Glade and Barrens Ecological System (NatureServe 2004) and, in part, Pinus echinata-Quercus marilandica / Kalmia latifolia – Symplocos tinctoria Woodland: Southern Piedmont Dry Oak-(Pine) Forest Ecological System (NatureServe 2004). Environment: Exposed, often west to south-facing upper slopes, mostly over felsic rock on deep, well-drained, moderately permeable, and extremely stony and extremely boulder soils or over mafic rock on deep, well drained extremely boulder soils. These are some of the hottest and driest sites on the Uwharrie NF. Disturbance regime: Susceptible to disturbance by high winds and lightning. Fire regime condition class IV (35-100 year return interval; mostly stand replacement severity). Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: Uncommon, < 100 acres potential, 28 acres existing. Most all sites in the Badin Lake area. Abundance relative to the potential in the surrounding 4 counties: 50% of 170 acres potential. Composition and structure (Reference condition): Open woodland dominated by shortleaf pine, Virginia pine, and chestnut oak or by shortleaf pine, blackjack oak and chestnut oak. Other characteristic trees include: blackgum, white oak, scarlet oak, black oak on soils derived from felsic rock or Carolina shagbark hickory, persimmon, and white ash on soils derived from mafic rock. On felsic soils mountain laurel, horsesugar, and dwarf huckleberry may form a dense shrub layer with a sparse herb layer that may include: bushy broomsedge, northern oat grass, silky oat grass, and Virginia goat’s rue. On mafic soils, characteristic shrub species include: farkleberry, southern blackhaw, redbud, and New Jersey tea with a diverse herb layer that may include: Elliott’s broomsedge, butterfly pea, starved witch-grass, sand hills bean and many others.

Rare species documented in this Ecological System: Species common name Status 1/ Habitat preference Chapman’s redtop potential SOI optimal habitat in system American-ipecac potential SOI suitable habitat in system 1/ SOI = Species of Interest

DRAFT

Ecological condition benchmarks within the optimal extent of this system: Key Factors Ecological Condition Benchmark Subject to (Percent of Optimal) Current Current Management Indicator Very Good Fair Poor Condition Rating Control good Species Percent of acreage > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% 28% Poor Composition dominated by shortleaf pine Canopy Percent of acreage > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% 68% 2/ Poor Structure at desired canopy closure 1/ Percent of acreage Fire Regime burned at least twice > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% 0% Poor in the last decade All above on Percent of acreage Same site at or near reference condition > 75% 50%-75% 35%-50% < 35% 28% 3/ Poor especially understory species 1/ desired canopy closure is 25-60% 2/ occurs only in Botanical SIA

Southern Piedmont Glade and Barrens

Derivation: Low Elevation Rocky Summit, Piedmont Mafic Cliff, Piedmont Acidic Cliff (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Southern Piedmont Glade and Barrens (NatureServe 2004). Environment: Rock outcrops on low elevation ridges and peaks, and very steep to vertical cliffs on stream bluffs, lower, or mid slopes. Soil is very shallow over mafic or felsic rock or accumulated in rock crevices. Disturbance regime: Susceptible to disturbance by high winds in more exposed sites. Soil erosion by wind and water is probably common. Extensive burning by American Indians before European settlement did not likely impact these sites greatly because fire does not carry well in the very sparse herb layer and barren rock. Fire regime condition class I (0-35 year return interval; surface fires of mixed severity). Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: This Ecological System is known from only 19 locations and is very limited in extent, occurring on less than 100 acres Forest-wide. Many sites are in the Badin Lake area near Falls Mountain, Shingle Trap Mountain, and above the Uwharrie river. Other prominent occurrences are at Dark Mountain, above Barnes Creek and Poison Fork between Dark Mountain and Long Mountain, at Walker Mountain, upper Wood Run, and Cedar Rock Mountain. Abundance relative to the potential in the surrounding 4 counties: Unknown Composition and structure (reference condition): Open woodlands to nearly treeless communities with highly variable composition. Open woodland canopy may be dominated by Virginia red cedar and winged elm with eastern red and Virginia pine. Other woody species include fringetree, pignut hickory, sand hickory, white ash, farkleberry, hillside blueberry, persimmon, and winged sumac. The sparse herb layer may be dominated by little bluestem. Other characteristic herb species include: whorled milkweed, long-stalked aster, ebony spleenwort, crossvine, hairy lipfern, silky oat-grass, starved witch grass, open-flower witch grass, pineweed, rock spikemoss, yellow Indian grass, and shielded-sorus polypody. On more acidic substrates post oak, chestnut oak, and pignut hickory may form an open canopy over little bluestem, oat grass, and needle grass. Many additional woodland plant community types are possible in this system.

DRAFT Rare species documented in this Ecological System: Species common name Status 1/ Habitat preference smooth coneflower Federally Threatened optimal habitat in system, obligate? Schweinitz’s sunflower Federally Endangered marginal habitat in system Georgia aster potential SOC optimal habitat in system American barberry potential SOC optimal habitat in system southern anemone potential SOI obligate of system Missouri rockcress potential SOI obligate of system Eastern shooting star potential SOI obligate of system glade milkvine potential SOI obligate of system Wright’s cliff-brake potential SOI obligate of system thick-pod white wild indigo potential SOI optimal habitat in system thin-pod white wild indigo potential SOI optimal habitat in system Eastern prairie blue wild indigo potential SOI optimal habitat in system ringed witch grass potential SOI optimal habitat in system Heller’s rabbit tobacco potential SOI optimal habitat in system narrow-leaved aster potential SOI optimal habitat in system Carolina thistle potential SOI suitable habitat in system crested coralroot potential SOI suitable habitat in system 1/ SOC = Species of Concern, SOI = Species of Interest

Ecological condition benchmarks within the optimal extent of this system: Key Factors Ecological Condition Benchmark Subject to (Percent of Optimal) Current Current Management Indicator Very Good Fair Poor Condition Rating Control good Species Percent of acreage Composition dominated by characteristic > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% unknown unknown tree species Canopy Percent of acreage > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% unknown unknown Structure at desired canopy closure 1/ Percent of acreage Fire Regime burned at least twice > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% 0% Poor in the last 20 years All above on Percent of acreage Same site at or near reference condition > 75% 50%-75% 35%-50% < 35% unknown unknown especially understory species 1/ desired canopy closure is 0%-25%

Southern Piedmont Mafic Hardpan Woodland

Derivation: Xeric Hardpan Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Southern Piedmont Mafic Hardpan Woodland Ecological System (NatureServe 2004). Environment: Upland flats and gentle slopes mostly over mafic rock on moderately deep to very deep, often very stony or boulder, well-drained soils with slow permeability likely due to an impermeable clay subsoil. Disturbance regime: Extensive burning by American Indians before European settlement likely impacted these sites. Fire regime condition class I (0-35 year return interval; surface fires of mixed severity). Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: This Ecological System is known from only 9 locations and is very limited in extent, occurring on less than 30 acres Forest-

DRAFT wide. The largest site is about 5 acres in size. Most (6) sites are in the Badin Lake area near the Arrowhead campground, West Branch, and above the Badin lake dam. One site is in the southern end of the Forest near the confluence of Cheek Creek and Sand Branch. Two sites occur at the headwaters of South prong of the Little River and Reedy Creek in the northern end of Forest. These are the only sites that do not occur in the Montgomery County Soil Survey on soils derived from mafic rock. Abundance relative to the potential in the surrounding 4 counties: Unknown Composition and structure (reference condition): Open woodland canopy dominated by, somewhat stunted, post oak and blackjack oak. A variety of other characteristics overstory tree species may be present including: Carolina shagbark hickory, white ash, pignut hickory, white oak, and black oak. Typical midstory and understory trees include: Virginia red cedar, persimmon, redbud, and winged elm. The understory shrub layer is sparse and may include: deerberry, farkleberry, and hillside blueberry. Characteristic species in the continuous herb layer include: needlegrass, northern oat grass, licorice bedstraw, Carolina jessamine, whip nutrush, saw greenbrier, glaucous greenbriar, and muscadine. Rare species documented in this Ecological System: Species common name Status 1/ Habitat preference Schweinitz’s sunflower Federally Endangered optimal habitat in system American barberry potential SOC optimal habitat in system Georgia aster potential SOC optimal habitat in system glade wild quinine potential SOI obligate of system Western rough goldenrod potential SOI obligate of system thick-pod white wild indigo potential SOI optimal habitat in system thin-pod white wild indigo potential SOI optimal habitat in system Eastern prairie blue wild indigo potential SOI optimal habitat in system Heller’s rabbit tobacco potential SOI optimal habitat in system narrow-leaved aster potential SOI optimal habitat in system Carolina thistle potential SOI suitable habitat in system 1/ SOC = Species of Concern, SOI = Species of Interest

Ecological condition benchmarks within the optimal extent of this system: Key Factors Ecological Condition Benchmark Subject to (Percent of Optimal) Current Current Management Indicator Very Good Fair Poor Condition Rating Control good Species Percent of acreage Composition dominated by Post oak and > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% 13% Poor Blackjack oak Canopy Percent of acreage > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% 13% Poor Structure at desired canopy closure 1/ Percent of acreage Fire Regime burned at least twice > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% 10% Poor in the last decade All above on Percent of acreage Same site at or near reference condition > 75% 50%-75% 35%-50% < 35% 10% Poor especially understory species 1/ desired canopy closure is 25%-60%

DRAFT Southern Piedmont / Ridge and Valley Upland Depression Swamp

Derivation: Upland Depression Swamp Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Southern Piedmont / Ridge and Valley Upland Depression Swamp Ecological System (NatureServe 2004). Environment: Upland flats, mostly over mafic rock on moderately deep to very deep, often very stony or boulder, well-drained soils with slow permeability. Disturbance regime: Seasonal to intermittent flooding. Exposed upland susceptible to disturbance by high winds and limited lightening. Extensive burning by American Indians before European settlement likely impacted these sites, and during drought periods may have resulted in stand replacement. However, because this ecological system occurs in sites than may be moist to inundated for much of the year and understory fuels are sparse, fire probably occurred only rarely and with low intensity. Fire regime condition classes I (0-35 year return interval; surface fires of mixed severity) and V (200+ year interval; stand replacement and mixed severity). Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: This Ecological System is known from only 11 locations and is very limited in extent, occurring on less than 15 acres Forest-wide. The largest sites are only about 2 acres in size. Most (7) sites are in the Badin Lake area near the Arrowhead campground, Badin Lake group campground, and above the Badin dam. Four sites are also known in upper Reedy Creek in the northern part of the Forest and 1 site is known near Walker Mountain. Abundance relative to the potential in the surrounding 4 counties: Unknown Composition and structure (reference condition): Closed forest canopy dominated by willow oak or codominant with or replaced by overcup oak, swamp white oak, swamp chestnut oak, or Sweetgum. Shrubs are sparse but may include: black highbush blueberry, highbush blueberry, buttonbush, inkberry, and arrowwood. Herbs are also sparse but may include: bladder sedge, longleaf spikegrass, and Eastern mannagrass. Mosses are abundant and include: Climacium americanum and Sphagnum lescurii. Upland pools are also included in this Ecological System; they are known from only two locations on the Forest - at Pleasant Grove Church and northwest of Roberdo. Upland pools lack significant tree cover except on their edge and are thought to be geologically successional to Upland Swamps. Characteristics tree species include: black gum, willow oak, and sweetgum. Characteristic shrub, herb, and moss species include: buttonbush, swamp doghobble, royal fern, lamp rush, sedges, and sphagnum moss. Rare species documented in this Ecological System: Species common name Status 1/ Habitat preference mole salamander potential SOI obligate of system four-toed salamander potential SOI obligate of system 1/ SOC = Species of Concern, SOI = Species of Interest

DRAFT

tree species Canopy Percent of acreage > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% 86% Good Structure at desired canopy closure 1/ Hydrologic Percent of acreage with > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% 73% Fair Regime unaltered natural hydrology All above on Percent of acreage Same site at or near reference condition > 75% 50%-75% 35%-50% < 35% 73% Good especially understory species 1/ desired canopy closure is 60%-100%

Piedmont Seepage Wetlands

Derivation: Hillside Seepage Bog, Piedmont Boggy Streamheads, Low Elevation Seep, (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Piedmont Seepage Wetlands (NatureServe 2004). Environment: Gently sloping wetlands in uplands or edges of bottomlands and wetlands along small intermittent or permanent stream beds. Soils are deep to very deep, often very stony, poorly to somewhat poorly-drained soils with slow permeability. Sites are seasonally to constantly saturated by seepage. Disturbance regime: Burning by American Indians, especially along bottomlands, to maintain open conditions for tending agricultural crops likely impacted these sites. However, because this ecological system occurs in moist sites, fire occurred only rarely and with low intensity especially after European settlement and continuing to the present period. Fire regime condition classes I (0-35 year return interval; surface fires of mixed severity) and V (200 year return interval, stand replacement and mixed severity). Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: Although this Ecological System is known from over 50 locations, it is limited in extent, occurring on less than 200 acres Forest-wide. This ecological system includes sites on the edges of bottomlands and wetlands along small intermittent and perennial stream beds (Piedmont Boggy Streamheads) which account for 2/3s of the locations and over 95% of the total extent of the system. Piedmont Boggy Streamheads are almost entirely imbedded within the Streamside Forests Ecological System but are described here in more detail. Hillside Seepage Bogs and Low Elevation Seeps are the least common components of this system accounting for fewer than 23 sites and are less than three acres in extent. Most prominent along Densons Creek, Haystack Branch, Poison Fork, Sand Branch, and West Branch. Abundance relative to the potential in the surrounding 4 counties: Unknown Composition and structure (reference condition): Streamside seepage areas are imbedded within forests and have a scattered tree canopy that may include: sweetgum, black gum, Sweetbay, and persimmon. The understory may contain: American holly, common winterberry, American strawberry bush, Virginia sweetspire, Southern wild raisin, tag alder, and ti-ti. The diverse herb layer is dominated by cinnamon fern, royal fern, skullcap, Southern lady fern, blaspheme-vine, and muscadine. Common spicebush and Yellowroot may occur along more well-developed stream channels. Hillside Seepage Bogs are imbedded in forests and woodlands and have a patchy to open canopy that may include: swamp red maple, tulip poplar, sweetgum, or longleaf pine. Characteristic shrubs include: evergreen bayberry, blue huckleberry, Southern blackhaw, tag alder, and red chokeberry. The herb layer is diverse and may contain: yellow pitcher plant, purple pitcher plant, bushy broomsedge, Pinebarrens sandreed, Northern oatgrass, savanna eupatorium, whip nuthatch, yellow-eyed grass, and Sphagnum ssp.

DRAFT

Rare species documented in this Ecological System: Species common name Status 1/ Habitat preference bog oat-grass potential SOC obligate of system bog spicebush potential SOC obligate of system little sneezeweed potential SOI obligate of system four-toed salamander potential SOI obligate of system mole salamander potential SOI obligate of system 1/ SOC = Species of Concern, SOI = Species of Interest

Ecological condition benchmarks within the optimal extent of this system: Key Factors Ecological Condition Benchmark Subject to (Percent of Optimal) Current Current Management Indicator Very Good Fair Poor Condition Rating Control good Species Percent of acreage Composition dominated by characteristic > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% 70% Fair wetland species Canopy Percent of acreage > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% 75% Fair Structure at desired canopy closure 1/ Hydrology Percent of acreage with > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% 80% Fair unaltered natural hydrology Percent of acreage within Fire Regime fire compartments burned at > 95% 85%-95% 70%-85% < 70% 75% Fair least twice in the last 15 years All above on Percent of acreage Same site at or near reference condition > 75% 50%-75% 35%-50% < 35% 65% Good especially understory species 1/ desired canopy closure is 25%-100% 2/ only occurs in Botanical SIA

Successional and planted Forest

Derivation: Semi-natural Forest, Cultivated Forest (NatureServe 2004). Environment: Xeric to mesic topographic positions (ridges, upper slopes, mid slopes, lower slopes), over felsic rock, or less commonly over mafic rock on mostly moderately deep to very deep, well drained, soil with moderate permeability; often very stony, extremely stony, or extremely boulder soils. Disturbance regime: Variable. Abundance and distribution on the Uwharrie NF: Approximately 20,500 acres outside the streamside forest zone. This is the most abundant ecological system on the Forest and occurs in nearly every parcel of land. Succesional loblolly pine forests are more common in the southern part and the Forest; successional shortleaf pine forests are more common in the central and northern part of the Forest. Successional forests are less extensive in the Wilderness and Badin Lake area but are still quite common in these areas. Composition and structure (current condition): Successional Forests represent early- to mid successional pine plantations, and mid- to late-successional forests resulting from other past disturbance such as agricultural or other land clearing. The latter category may

DRAFT include old fields, old pastures, clearcuts, stands resulting from stand replacement fire, and to a lesser extent, eroded areas. Successional Forests are divided into two groups: 1) Loblolly pine, which includes 10,700 acres of stands identified as Loblolly pine (CISC forest type 31), and 615 acres identified as Loblolly pine-Hardwood (CISC forest type 13), and 2) Shortleaf pine, which includes about 7,000 identified as Shortleaf pine (CISC forest type 32), 1,925 acres identified as Shortleaf pine-Oak (CISC forest type 12), 270 acres of Virginia pine (CISC forest type 33), and 30 acres of Virginia pine-oak (CISC forest type 16).

Young (1-20 years in age) pine plantations may be dominated by an open to near complete canopy of loblolly pine or shortleaf pine with little understory, a subcanopy of red maple, dogwood, and Sweetgum with few oaks. The herbaceous layer is sparse or nearly absent. Pine plantations greater than 20 years in age often have a closed canopy (depending upon past damage by Southern Pine Beetle) of loblolly or shortleaf pine, and a well-developed subcanopy of hardwoods including red maple and sweetgum, scarlet, black and white oak, blackgum, and hickories. The shrub layer may include: hillside blueberry, winged sumac, black huckleberry, and beautyberry. The herb layer is sparse but may the following invasive-exotic species: Japanese honeysuckle and Japanese stilt grass.

Older (>50 years in age) stands resulting from past disturbance are often dominated by loblolly pine and sweetgum (dry-mesic to mesic sites) or shortleaf pine and mixed oaks (xeric to dry-mesic sites). Tree, shrub, and herb species are variable on these sites and may include: willow oak, winged elm, black cherry, muscadine, poison ivy, Southern blackberry, common dog-fennel, hyssopleaf eupatorium, common rough fleabane, smooth goldenrod, common ragweed, and common greenbrier. In the southern part of the Forest, species more common in the coastal plain and sandhills may occur, such as: creeping blueberry, dwarf serviceberry, and sandhill St.-John’s-wort. Rare species documented in this Ecological System: Species common name Status 1/ Habitat preference red-cockaded woodpecker Federally Endangered optimal habitat in system when forests are mature, open, and dominated by shortleaf pine Eastern small-footed myotis potential SOC marginal habitat in system smooth sunflower potential SOI suitable habitat in system 1/ SOC = Species of Concern, SOI = Species of Interest

Current and Potential Ecological condition: The Successional Forest Ecological System is found on a wide variety of sites that could support forest communities and species found in at least 5 other Ecological Systems on the Uwharrie National Forest (Table 1). Successional Loblolly pine stands occupy approximately 3,905 acres where Longleaf pine forest communities would be better adapted, and nearly 7,000 acres where Oak-Hickory forests could occur (4,355 Dry Oak- Hickory and 2,430 acres of Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory). Successional Shortleaf pine stands occupy approximately 830 acres where Longleaf pine forest communities would be better adapted, and over 7,000 acres where Oak-Hickory forest could occur (5,285 Dry Oak-

DRAFT Hickory and 2,055 acres of Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory). These areas represent restoration opportunities for Longleaf and Oak-Hickory forests on 19,000 acres.

Table 1. Ageclass distribution of Successional Loblolly and Shortleaf Pine Ecological Systems occurring within other major Ecological Systems on the Uwharrie National Forest Ageclass (years) 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 100+ All ages Potential Ecol. System Existing Ecological System: LOBLOLLY PINE Xeric Oak - 20 40 60 170 10 - - - - - 300 Longleaf pine - 860 440 1,140 715 170 70 50 220 235 5 3,905 Dry Oak-Hickory 100 840 730 1,160 885 200 85 75 170 85 25 4,355 Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory 45 425 375 680 515 105 50 50 115 70 - 2,430 Mesic Forests 25 90 25 70 20 5 - - 45 10 - 290 Total acres (nearest 5 ac.) 175 2,245 1,615 3,110 2,305 490 210 180 555 410 40 11,335 Total proportion (nearest.5) 1.5% 20.0% 14.0% 27.0% 20.0% 4.0% 2.0% 1.5% 5.0% 4.0% - Potential Ecol. System Existing Ecological System: SHORTLEAF PINE Xeric Oak 60 285 180 105 5 - - 10 30 10 145 830 Longleaf pine 115 120 65 45 5 15 60 140 140 85 40 830 Dry Oak-Hickory 580 980 570 515 10 60 60 720 540 430 720 5,185 Dry-mesic Oak-Hickory 255 310 220 210 - 20 45 260 230 240 265 2,055 Mesic Forests 15 20 20 5 - 5 5 70 50 10 35 235 Total acres (nearest 5 ac.) 1,030 1,725 1,060 890 30 105 170 1,200 990 780 1,215 9,195 Total proportion (nearest.5) 11.0% 19.0% 12.0% 10.0% - 1.0% 2.0% 13.0% 11.0% 9.0% 13.0% 1

DRAFT Table 2: Common and scientific names for species in ecological system descriptions

American barberry (Berberis canadensis) American beech (Fagus grandiflora) American bittersweet (Celastrus scandens) American holly (Ilex opaca var. opaca) American strawberry bush (Euonymus Americana) American-ipecac (Gillenia stipulata) Arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.) Arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum) Beechdrops (Epifagus virginiana) Black cherry (Prunus serotina) Black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa) Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) Black highbush blueberry (Vaccinium fuscatum) Black huckleberry (Galussacia baccata) Black oak (Quercus velutina) Black-edge sedge (Carex nigromarginata) Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) Blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica) Bladder sedge (Carex intumescens) Blaspheme-vine (Smilax laurifolia) Bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis) Blue huckleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa) Bluestem goldenrod (Solidao caesia) Bluff oak (Quercus austrina) Bog oat-grass (Danthonia epilis) Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus var. virginicus) Bushy broomsedge (Andropogon glomeratus) Butterfly pea (Clitoria mariana) Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis var. occidentalis) Canby’s bulrush (Schoenoplectus etuberculatus) Carolina alumroot (Heuchera caroliniana) Carolina jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens) Carolina shagbark hickory (Cary carolinae-septentrionalis) Carolina supplejack (Berchemia scandens) Carolina thistle (Cirsium carolinianum) Chalk maple (Acer leucoderme) Chapman’s redtop (Tridens chapmanii) Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda) Chestnut oak (Quercus montana) Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides var. acrostichoides) Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) Common alumroot (Heuchera americana) Common chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. pumila) Common dog-fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) Common foamflower (Tiarella cordifolia var. collina) Common greenbrier (Smilax spp) Common jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema tripyllum ssp. triphyllum) Common pawpaw (Asimina triloba) Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) Common rough fleabane (Erigeron strigosus) Common spicebush (Lindera benzoin) Common stargrass (Hypoxis hirsuta) Common winterberry (Ilex verticillata) Cowlily (Nuphar lutea) Creeping blueberry (Vaccinium crassifolium) Crested coralroot (Hexalectis spicata) Crossvine (Bignonia capreolata) Deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum) Dissected toothwort (Cardamine dissecta)

DRAFT

Dogwood (Cornus florida) Downy arrowwood (Viburnum rafinesquianum) Dwarf huckleberry (Gaylussacia dumosa) Dwarf serviceberry (Amelanchier stolonifera) Eastern mannagrass (Glyceria septentrionalis) Eastern prairie blue wild indigo (Babtisia australis var. aberrans) Eastern red maple (Acer rubrum var. rubrum) Eastern shooting star (Dodecatheon media ssp. media) Eastern Small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) Ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron var. platyneuron) Echinacea laevigata (Smooth coneflower) Elliott’s Broomsedge (Andropogon gyrans) Evergreen bayberry (Morella caroliniensis) Fairywand (Chamaelirium luteum) False nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical) Farkleberry (Vaccinium arboretum) Four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) Fringetree (Chionanthus virginicus) Galax (Galax urceolata) Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) Glade milkvine (Matelea decipiens) Glade wild quinine (Parthenium integrifolium var. auriculatum) Glaucous greenbrier (Smilax glauca) Green Arrow-arum (Peltandra virginica) Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) Hairy highbush blueberry (Vaccinium fuscatum) Hairy lipfern (Cheilanthes lanosa) Heartleaf plantain (Plantago cordata) Hedge nettle (Stachy sp. 1) Heller’s rabbit tobacco (Pseudognaphalium helleri) Helmet flower (Scutellaria integrifolia) Highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) Hillside blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum) Hop-hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) Hornwort (Ceratophyllum spp) Horsesugar (Symplocos tinctoria) Hyssopleaf eupatorium (Eupatorium hyssopifolium var. hyssopifolium) Indian physic (Porteranthus stipulatus) Inkberry (Ilex decidua) Inland roundleaf eupatorium (Eupatorium rotundifolium var. ovatum) Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana ssp caroliniana) Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum) Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum). Lamp rush (Juncus effuses) Large witch alder (Fothergilla major) Late eupatorium (Eupatorium serotinum) Leafy elephant's-foot (Elephantopus carolinianus), Licorice bedstraw (Galium circaezans) Licorice goldenrod (Solidago odora var. odora) Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) Littleleaf sneezeweed (Helinium brevifolium) Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) Longleaf spikegrass (Chasmanthium sessiliflorum) Long-stalked aster (Symphyotrichum dumosum var. dumosum) Maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum) Maryland goldenaster (Chrysopsis mariana) Missouri rockcress (Arabis missouriensis) Mockernut hickory (Carya alba) Mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum) Mosses: (Climacium americanum)

DRAFT

Mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata) Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia) Narrow-leaved aster (Symphyotrichum laeve var. concinnum) Needlegrass (Piptochaetium avenaceum) New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americana) Northern green-and-gold (Chrysogonum virginianum) Northern oak grass (Danthonia spicata) Northern red oak (Quercus rubra) Oat grass (Danthonia spicata) Open flower witch grass (Dichanthelium laxiflorum) Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) Painted buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica) Persimmon (Diospyros virginina) Piedmont aster (Eurybia mirabilis) Piedmont horsebalm (Collinsonia tuberosa) Piedmont indigo bush (Amorpha schwerinii) Pignut hickory (Carya glabra) Pinebarrens sandreed (Calamovilfa brevipilis) Pineweed (Hypericum gentianoides) Pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata) Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) Pondweed (Potamogeton spp) Post oak (Quercus stellata) Poverty oat-grass (Danthonia spicata) Purple pitcher plant (Sarracenia purpurea) Pursh’s wild petunia (Ruella purshiana) Rafinesque’s Big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) Rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum) Rattlesnake hawkweed (Hieracium venosum) Rattlesnake plantain (Chimaphila maculata) Ravine sedge (Carex impressinervia) Red chokeberry (Photinia pyrifolia) Red hickory (Carya ovalis) Red maple (Acer rubrum) Redbud (Cercis canadensis) Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Ringed witch grass (Dichanthelium annulum) River birch (Betula nigra) Rock spikemoss (Selaginella rupestris) Royal fern (Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis) Sand hickory (Cary palida) Sand hills bean (Phaseolus polystachios) Savanna eupatorium (Eupatorium leucolepis) Saw greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox) Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea var. coccinea) Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) Sedges (Carex spp) Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) Shielded-sorus polypody (Pleopeltis polypodioides ssp. michauxiana) Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) Silky oat-grass (Danthonia sericea var. sericea), Silverbell (Halesia tetraptera var. tetraptera) Silver-haired bat (Lasioncteris noctivagans) Skullcap (Scutellaria integrifolia) Slender spikegrass (Chasmanthium laxum) Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) Smooth goldenrod (Solidago gigantea) Smooth sunflower (Helianthus laevigatus) Sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum) Southern anemone (Anemone berlandieri)

DRAFT

Southern blackberry (Rubus argutus) Southern blackhaw (Viburnum rufidulum) Southern blueberry (Vaccinium tenellum) Southern bracken (Pteridium aquilinum var. pseudocaudatum) Southern lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina ssp asplenioides) Southern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana) Southern red oak (Quercus falcata) Southern wild raisin (Viburnum nudum var. nudum) Sphagnum mosses: (Sphagnum lescurii) Splitbeard bluestem (Andropogon ternarius var. ternarius) St.-John’s-wort (Hypericum lloydii) Starved witch grass (Dichanthelium depauperatum) Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) Swamp doghobble (Leucothoe racemosa) Swamp red maple (Acer rubrum var. trilobum) Swamp rose (Rosa palustris) Swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor) Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) Thick-pod white wild indigo (Baptisia alba) Thin-pod white wild indigo (Baptisia albescens) Threadleaf coreopsis (Coreopsis verticillata) Tick-trefoils (Desmodium spp.) Ti-ti (Cyrilla racemiflora) Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) Virginia goat's-rue (Tephrosia virginiana) Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) Virginia red cedar (Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana) Virginia spiderwort (Tradescantia virginiana) Virginia sweetspire (Itea virginica) Virginia wild-rye (Elymus virginicus) Warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus) Water lily (Nmphaea odorata) Water oak (Quercus nigra) Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spp) Western rough goldenrod (Solidago radula var. radula) Whip nutrush (Scleria triglomerata) White ash (Fraxinus americana) White oak (Quercus alba) Whorled milkweed (Asclepias verticillata) Wild ginger (Asarum canadense) Wild grape (Vitis spp.). Willow oak (Quercus phellos) Winged elm (Ulmus alata) Winged witchgrass (Dichanthelium annulum) Witch alder (Fothergilla major) Wood anemone (Anemone quinquefolia var. quenquefolia) Woodland tick-trefoil (Desmodium nudiflorum) Wright’s cliff-brake (Pellaea wrightiana) Yadkin River goldenrod (Solidago plumosa) Yellow Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans) Yellow pitcher plant (Sarracenia flava) Yellow yam (Dioscorea quaternata) Yellow-eyed grass (Xyris ambigua) Yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima)

DRAFT

APPENDIX C:

Threatened and Endangered, potential species of concern, and potential species of interest whose ranges include the UWNF and / or are found within the Carolina Slate Belt and Southern Triassic Uplands Ecological Subsections.

Scientific Name Common Name Lifeform Potential Grank Srank Frank Outside Secure Screen EO 1/ EO EO EO Status Range? in NC Criteria on in 4 Ecoreg NC UWNF county Ecoreg Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Bird T&E G4 S3B,S3N F2 7 1 16 70 35 Mycteria americana Wood Stork Bird T&E G4 S1N F0 yes 1 Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Woodpecker Bird T&E G3 S2 FH 7 1 4 21 13 Puma concolor couguar Eastern Cougar Mammal T&E G5TH SH FH 5 Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle Reptile T&E G3 S2 yes 1 Schweinitz's Helianthus schweinitzii Sunflower vas T&E G3 S3 F2 7 29 118 200 197 Rhus michauxii Michaux's Sumac vas T&E G2 S2 F? 8 3 3 S. MT Gray-cheeked Plethodon meridianus Salam. Amphibia SOC G1G2[G3G S3S4 yes 1 Cincindela patruela Barrens Tiger Beetle Beetle SOC G3 S2? FP 3 Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow Bird SOC G3 S3B,S2N FH 8 4 4 Callophrys irus Frosted Elfin Butterfl SOC G3 S2 4 Speyeria diana Diana Fritillary Butterfl SOC G3[G3G4] S3S4 yes 1 a short-winged Melanoplus mirus Melanop. Grasshop SOC G2G3 S2S3 3 Myotis leibii Eastern Small-footed Mammal SOC G3 SUB,S2N yes 1 Triodopsis fulciden Dwarf Threetooth Mollusk SOC G1G2 S1S2 yes 1 Heliomata infulata Rare Spring Moth Moth SOC G2G4 S2S3 3 Closter's Brook- Hygrohypnum closteri hypnu nonvas SOC G3 S1 F0 yes 1 1 1 Nardia lescurii Liverwort nonvas SOC G3? S3? FP yes 2 Pellia appalachiana Liverwort nonvas SOC G2 S1? F0 yes 1 Riccardia jugata Liverwort nonvas SOC G2 S1 F0 yes 1 Agoyan Cataract Scopelophila cataractae Moss nonvas SOC G3 S1 F0 yes 1 1 1 Astrabalus michauxii Sandhills Milkvetch vas SOC G3 S3 F0 yes 1 1 0 Baptisia australis var. aber Prairie Blue Wild Ind vas SOC G5T2 S2 FP 7 1 16 16 Berberis canadensis American Barberry vas SOC G3 S2 FP 7 1 8 8 Carex impressinervia Ravine Sedge vas SOC G1G2 S1 F1 7 5 7 7 7

DRAFT

Cyperus granitophilus Granite Flatsedge vas SOC G3Q S2 F0 yes 1 2 1 Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur vas SOC G3 S2 F0 yes 1 2 2 Open-Ground Draba aprica Whitlow G vas SOC G3 S0 F0 yes 1 1 0 Echinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower vas SOC G2 S1 FP 7 1 20 18 Eurybia mirabilis Piedmont Aster vas SOC G2G3 S2 F1 7 1 3 21 21 Fothergilla major Large Witch-alder vas SOC G3 S3 F1 7 4 7 10 10 Gaylussacia brachycera Box Huckleberry vas SOC G3 S1 F0 yes 1 1 1 White-leaved Helianthus glaucophyllus Sunflowe vas SOC G3 S3 F0 yes 1 1 0 Heuchera caroliniana Carolina Alumroot vas SOC G3 S3 F1? yes 7 Hymenocallis coronaria Shoals Spider-lily vas SOC G2Q S0 F0 yes 1 13 0 Isoetes hyemalis A Quillwort vas SOC G2G3 S1S2 FP 4 1 0 Black-spored Isoetes melanospora Quillwor vas SOC G1 S0 F0 yes 1 1 0 Isoetes piedmontana Piedmont Quillwort vas SOC G3 S1 F? 9 6 2 Isoetes virginica Virginia Quillwort vas SOC G1 S1 F? 3 3 3 Lindera subcoriacea Bog Spicebush vas SOC G2 S2 FP 7 1 1 1 Lotus helleri Carolina Birdfoot-tre vas SOC G3 S3 FP yes 7 7 26 23 Marshallia sp. 1 Butner Barbara's-butt vas SOC G1 S1 F0 yes 1 3 2 Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap vas SOC G3 S3 F? yes 2 12 12 Parthenium auriculatum Glade Wild Quinine vas SOC G3? S2 F1 7 5 5 28 28 Phacelia covillei Buttercup Phacelia vas SOC G2 S3 F0 yes 1 10 10 Large-flowered Phemeranthus mengesii Famefl vas SOC G3 S1 F0 yes 1 1 1 Portulaca smallii Small's Portulaca vas SOC G3 S2 F? 9 2 1 Pseudognaphalium Small Rabbit- micradenium Tobacco vas SOC G3? S1 F? 3 3 3 Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella vas SOC G2 S0 F0 yes 1 3 3 Ptilimnium vivparum Atlantic River Harper vas SOC G2 S1 F0 yes 1 Torrey's Mountain- Pycnanthemum torreyi min vas SOC G2 S1 FP yes 1 6 5 Quercus oglethorpensis Oglethorpe's Oak vas SOC G3 S0 F0 yes 1 87 0 Miccosukee Ribes echinellum Gooseberry vas SOC G1 S0 F0 yes 1 3 0 Ruellia purshiana Pursh's Wild-petunia vas SOC G3 S2 F1 7 1 2 8 8 Sedum pusillum Puck's Orpine vas SOC G3 S1 F0 yes 1 8 4 Yadkin River Solidago plumosa Goldenro vas SOC G1 S1 FP 7 3 3 3 Symphyotrichum Georgia Aster vas SOC G2G3 S2 F1 7 5 13 45 27

DRAFT

georgianum Tridens chapmanii Chapman's Redtop vas SOC G3 S1S2 FP 7 Trillium discolor Faded Trillium vas SOC G3 S1 F0 yes 1 32 0 Trillium lancifolium Narrow-leaved Trilliu vas SOC G3 S0 F0 yes 1 4 0 Southern Nodding Trillium rugelii Tril vas SOC G3 S2? F0 yes 1 1 0 Ambystoma maculatum Spotted Salamander Amphibia SOI G5 S5 yes 2 2 2 5 5 Ambystoma opacum Marbled Salamander Amphibia SOI G5 S5 yes 2 1 0 Ambystoma talpoideum Mole Salamander Amphibia SOI G5 S2 7 1 Ambystoma tigrinum Easter Tiger tigrinum Salamander Amphibia SOI G5 S2 FP 7 Three-lined Eurycea guttolineata Salamander Amphibia SOI G5 S5 yes 2 Eurycea quadridigitata Dwarf Salamander Amphibia SOI G5 S2 7 Four-toed Hemidactylium scutatum Salamander Amphibia SOI G5 S3 7 1 5 21 21 Hyla gratiosa Barking Treefrog Amphibia SOI G5 S3S4 2 Northern Gray Hyla versicolor Treefrog Amphibia SOI G5 S1? 3 Plethodon glutinosus Northern Slimy sensust Salamander Amphibia SOI G5 SU 3 Webster's Plethodon websteri Salamander Amphibia SOI G3 Not in N F0 yes 1 40 0 Plethodon wehrlei Wehrle's Salamander Amphibia SOI G5 S1 yes 1 Eastern Mud Pseudotriton montanus Salamander Amphibia SOI G5 S5 F3 yes 2 Scaphiopus holbrookii Eastern Spadefoot Amphibia SOI G5 S5 yes 2 Vaejovis carolinianus Carolina scorpion Arachnid SOI G5 S2? 3 Stenelmis sp nov 2 William's Stenelmis R Beetle SOI G? S2 3 Stenelmis sp nov 3 a riffle beetle Beetle SOI G? S2 3 Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk Bird SOI G5 S3S4B,S4 yes 2 Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk Bird SOI G5 S2B,S4N 7 Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's Sparrow Bird SOI G4 S2B,S1N yes 1 Ammodramus Grasshopper savannarum Sparrow Bird SOI G5 S3B,S1N 7 Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper Bird SOI G5 SNA yes 1 Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing Bird SOI G5 S4B,S5N F0 yes 2 Caprimulgus carolinensis Chuck-wills-widow Bird SOI G5 S5B F3 yes 2 Caprimulgus vociferus Whip-poor-will Bird SOI G5 S5B F4 yes 2 1 Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk Bird SOI G5 S4B yes 2 1

DRAFT

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo Bird SOI G5 S5B F4 yes 2 24 Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker Bird SOI G5 S5B,S5N yes 2 Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite Bird SOI G5 S5 F4 yes 7 5+ Contopus virens Eastern Wood Pewee Bird SOI G5 S5B F5 yes 7 10 Coragyps atratus Black Vulture Bird SOI G5 S3S4 2 Corvus corax Common Raven Bird SOI G5 S3 yes 1 1 Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler Bird SOI G4 S2B,SZN F0 yes 1 Dendroica discolor Prairie Warbler Bird SOI G5 S5B,S1N 7 15 Yellow-throated Dendroica dominica Warbe Bird SOI G5 S5B F3 yes 2 12 Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Bird SOI G5 SUB yes 1 Empidonax traillii Willow Flycatcher Bird SOI G5 S3B,S3N yes 1 Empidonax virescens Acadian Flycatcher Bird SOI G5 S5B F5 yes 2 43 Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird Bird SOI G4 S4N yes 2 Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon Bird SOI G4 S1B,S2N yes 1 Falco sparverius American Kestrel Bird SOI G5 S3B,S5N F1 4 Helmitheros vermivorus Worm-eating Warbler Bird SOI G5 S4B F1 yes yes 2 11 Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush Bird SOI G5 S5B F4 yes 2 37 Icteria virens Yellow-breasted Chat Bird SOI G5 S5B F4 yes 2 15 Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole Bird SOI G5 S3B,S3N yes 1 Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole Bird SOI G5 S5B F3 yes 2 Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern Bird SOI G5 S3B,SZN 3 Lanius ludovicianus lucovici Loggerhead Shrike Bird SOI G4T4 S3B,S3N F1 7 1 Laterallus jamaicensis Black Rail Bird SOI G4 S3B,S3N yes 1 Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler Bird SOI G4 S3B,SZN 3 Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser Bird SOI G5 S1B,S4N yes 1 Melanerpes Red-headed erythrocephalus Woodpecker Bird SOI G5 S4B,S4N 7 9 Myiarchus crinitus Great-crested Flycatc Bird SOI G5 S5B F4 yes 2 15 Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned Night Bird SOI G5 S3B,SZN yes 1 Oporornis formosus Kentucky Warbler Bird SOI G5 S4B F3 yes 2 10 Double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus Cormor Bird SOI G5 S1B,S5N yes 1 1 1 Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker Bird SOI G5 S4 yes 2 5 Protonotaria citrea Prothonotory Warbler Bird SOI G5 S5B F2 yes 2 2 Rallus elegans King Rail Bird SOI G4G5 S3B,S3N 4 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Bird SOI G5 SUB,SZN yes 1 Scolopax minor American Woodcock Bird SOI G5 S4B,S4N F3 yes 2

DRAFT

Louisiana Seiurus motacilla Waterthrush Bird SOI G5 S4B F4 yes 2 3 Brown-headed Sitta pusilla Nuthatch Bird SOI G5 S5 F4 yes 7 1 Spiza americana Dickcissel Bird SOI G5 S2B,SZN yes 1 Spizella pusilla Field Sparrow Bird SOI G5 S5B,S5N F3 yes 2 6 Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark Bird SOI G5 S5B,S5N yes 2 Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow Bird SOI G5 S2S3B,S4 yes 1 Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren Bird SOI G5 SHB yes 1 Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird Bird SOI G5 S5B yes 2 1 Tyto alba Barn Owl Bird SOI G5 S3B,S3N 4 Vireo flavifrons Yellow-throated Vireo Bird SOI G5 S4B F4 yes 2 9 Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo Bird SOI G5 S2B,SZN yes 1 1 1 Vireo griseus White-eyed Vireo Bird SOI G5 S5B,S1N F4 2 7 Wilsonia citrina Hooded Warbler Bird SOI G5 S5B F5 yes 2 25 Carolina Roadside Amblyscirtes carolina Ski Butterfl SOI G3G4 S3S4 2 Reversed Roadside- Amblyscirtes reversa Ski Butterfl SOI G3G4 S3 3 Golden Banded- Autochton cellus Skipper Butterfl SOI G4 S1S2 3 Callophrys augustinus Brown Elfin Butterfl SOI G5 S3S4 2 Erynnis martialis Mottled Duskywing Butterfl SOI G3G4 S3 F1 8 1 1 3 3 Euphyes bimacula Two-spotted Skipper Butterfl SOI G4 S2 3 Northern Oak Fixsenia favonius ontarios Hairstre Butterfl SOI G4T4 S3? 6 1 2 2 Hesperia leonardus Leonard's Skipper Butterfl SOI G4 S3S4 2 Hesperia metea Cobweb Skipper Butterfl SOI G5 S3 3 Megathymus cofaqui Cofaqui Giant cofaqui Skipper Butterfl SOI G3G4T3 S1? yes 1 Neonympha areaolata Georgia Satyr Butterfl SOI G4 S3 3 Papilio cresphontes Giant Swallowtail Butterfl SOI G5 S2 3 Pontia protodice Checkered White Butterfl SOI G4 S3 3 Satyrium kingi King's Hairstreak Butterfl SOI G3G4 S2S3 3 Confused Thorybes confusis Cloudywing Butterfl SOI G4 S3S4 2 Eastern Lubber Romalea guttatus Grassh Grasshop SOI G5 SU 3 Condylura cristata pop 1 Star-nosed Mole - CP Mammal SOI G5T2Q S2 yes 1 1 1 1 Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big- Mammal SOI G3G4T? S2 F0 7

DRAFT

eare Cryptotis parva Least Shrew Mammal SOI G5 S5 yes 2 Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired bat Mammal SOI G5 S2?B,S4N 7 Lasiurus intermedius Northern yellow bat Mammal SOI G4G5 SU yes 1 Lasiurus seminolus Seminole Bat Mammal SOI G5 S3S4B,SZ 3 Lontra canadensis River Otter Mammal SOI G5 S4 F2 yes 2 Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow Vole Mammal SOI G5 S5 yes 2 Mustela frenata Long-tailed Weasel Mammal SOI G5 S3S4 2 Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Myotis Mammal SOI G3G4 S3 8 Northern long-eared Myotis septentrionalis m Mammal SOI G4 S3 yes 1 Neotoma floridana Eastern woodrat-SA haematorei po Mammal SOI G5T4Q S3 3 Neotoma magister Appalachian woodrat Mammal SOI G3G4 S2 yes 1 Peromyscus polionotus Oldfield mouse Mammal SOI G5 S1? yes 1 Scalopus aquaticus Eastern Mole Mammal SOI G5 S5 yes 2 Sciurus niger Eastern fox squirrel Mammal SOI G5 S3 F0 7 Meadow Jumping Zapus hudsonius Mouse Mammal SOI G5 S3 3 Valvata sincera Mossy Valvata Mollusk SOI G5 S1 yes 1 Acronicta albarufa Barrens Daggermoth Moth SOI G3G4 SH 3 Puzzling Dagger Acronicta hamamelis Moth Moth SOI G4? SU 3 Anticlea multiferata Many-lined Carpet Moth SOI G5 SU 3 Arugisa watsoni Watson's Arugisa Moth SOI G4 S3? 3 Southern Pine Caripeta aretaria Looper Moth SOI G4 S3? 3 Catocala pretiosa Texarkana texarkana Underwing Moth SOI G4T4 SU 3 Catocala sappho Sappho Underwing Moth SOI G4 SU 3 Formosa Looper Chrysanympha formosa Moth Moth SOI G5 S3S4 2 Cycnia inopinatus Unexpected Cycnia Moth SOI G4 SU 3 Exyra fax Purple Pitcher-plant Moth SOI G4 S3? 3 Exyra ridingsii a pitcher-plant moth Moth SOI G3G4 S3? 3 Hemeroplanis sp 1 nr obliqua an owlet moth Moth SOI G? S2S3 3 Lithophane lemmeri Lemmer's Pinion Moth SOI G3G4 S1S3 3 Papaipema baptisiae Wild Indigo Borer Mot Moth SOI G4 SU 3 Pyreferra pettiti a sallow moth Moth SOI G? SU 3

DRAFT

a new prominent Schizura sp 1 moth Moth SOI G3G4 S1S3 3 Sphinx franckii Franck's Sphinx Moth SOI G4 SU 3 Tripudia quadrifera an owlet moth Moth SOI G? SU 3 Brachythecium rotaeanum Rota's Feather Moss nonvas SOI G3G4 S1 F0 yes 1 1 1 Anolis carolinensis Carolina Anole Reptile SOI G5 S5 F3 yes 2 Apolone spinfera aspera Gulf Coast Spiny Soft Reptile SOI G5T5 S3 3 Cemophora coccinea Scarlet Snake Reptile SOI G5 S3 F1 4 Clemmys guttata Spotted Turtle Reptile SOI G5 S3 4 Crotalus horridus Timber rattlesnake Reptile SOI G4 S3 6 2 2 2 Elaphe guttata guttata Corn Snake Reptile SOI G5 S4 F3 yes 2 Eumeces inexpectatus Southeastern five-lin Reptile SOI G5 S5 F3 yes 2 Eumeces laticeps Broad-headed Skink Reptile SOI G5 S5 yes 2 Farancia abacura abacura Eastern Mudsnake Reptile SOI G5 S4 yes 2 Eastern Hog-nosed Heterodon platirhinos Sna Reptile SOI G5 S4S5 yes 2 Kinosternon baurii Striped Mud Turtle Reptile SOI G5 S3? yes 1 Lampropeltis calligaster rho Mole Kingsnake Reptile SOI G5T5 Not in N 1 Lampropeltis getula getula Eastern Kingsnake Reptile SOI G5T5 S5 yes 2 Lampropeltis traingulum tria Eastern Milk Snake Reptile SOI G5T5 S2S3 yes 1 Lampropeltis triangulum elap Scarlet Kingsnake Reptile SOI G5T5 S3 F2 6 Masticophis flagellum Coachwhip Reptile SOI G5 S3 6 1 3 3 Ophisaurus attenuatus Slender Glass Lizard Reptile SOI G5 S3 3 Pituophis melanoleucus melan Northern Pine Snake Reptile SOI G4T4 S3 F0 6 16 1 1 Sistrurus miliarius Pigmy Rattlesnake Reptile SOI G5 S3 6 1 1 1 Southeastern Tantilla coronata Crowned Reptile SOI G5 S3S4 F1 2 Terrapene carolina Eastern Box Turtle Reptile SOI G5 S5 yes 2 Thamnophis sauritus Eastern Ribbon sauritus Snake Reptile SOI G5 S4 F3 yes 2 Virginia valeriae Smooth Earth Snake Reptile SOI G5 S3 F2 3 Acer leucoderme Chalk Maple vas SOI G5 S3 F3 yes 2 Allium cernuum var cernuum Nodding onion vas SOI G5T5 SNR F2 probabl 2 Piedmont Indigo- Amorpha schwerinii bush vas SOI G3G4 S3 F3 yes 7 62 99 102 102

DRAFT

Anemone berlandieri Southern Anemone vas SOI G4? S2 F1 7 1 3 7 6 Anemone caroliniana Carolina Anemone vas SOI G5 S1 F0 yes 1 2 0 Arabis missouriensis Missouri Rockcress vas SOI G5?Q S1 FP 7 3 7 5 Asplenium bradleyi Bradley's Spleenwort vas SOI G4 S1 F0 yes 1 1 1 Baptisia alba var alba Thick-pod White Wild vas SOI G5T3T5 S2 FP 7 5 13 13 Baptisia albescens Thin-pod White Wild I vas SOI G4 S2 F2 7 9 23 30 30 Buchnera americana American Bluehearts vas SOI G5 SH F? 3 1 1 Campanulastrum americanum Tall Bellflower vas SOI G5 S4 F? yes 2 1 0 Cardamine dissecta Dissected Toothwort vas SOI G4? S2 F1 7 2 10 9 9 Cardamine douglassii Douglass's Bittercres vas SOI G5 S2 F0 yes 1 7 7 Carex bushii Bush's Sedge vas SOI G4 S1 F0 yes 1 2 2 Carex gracillima Graceful sedge vas SOI G5 S3 FP yes 2 Carex jamesii James's Sedge vas SOI G5 S1 F? 9 5 5 Carex meadii Mead's Sedge vas SOI G4G5 S1 F0 yes 1 2 2 Carex projecta Necklace Sedge vas SOI G5 S1 F? 9 1 1 Carex vestita Velvet Sedge vas SOI G5 SH F0 yes 1 1 1 Carya laciniosa Big Shellbark Hickory vas SOI G5 S1 F0 yes 1 1 1 Celastrus scandens American bittersweet vas SOI G5 S2 FP 7 Cirsium carolinianum Carolina Thistle vas SOI G5 S2 F2 7 11 11 14 13 Coelorachis cylindrica Carolina Jointgrass vas SOI G4G5 SH FP 3 1 1 Collinsonia tuberosa Piedmont Horsebalm vas SOI G3G4 S1 F1 7 1 1 5 5 Houghton's Cyperus houghtonii Flatsedge vas SOI G4? SH F0 yes 1 Cystopteris protrusa Lowland Brittle Fern vas SOI G5 S5 F1 yes 2 3 0 Danthonia epilis Bog Oatgrass vas SOI G3G4 S2? FP 7 2 2 2 Dutchman's Dicentra cucullaria Breeches vas SOI G5 S4 F1? yes 2 1 0 Dichanthelium annulum A Witch Grass vas SOI GNR SH FP 7 5 4 Didiplis diandra Water Purslane vas SOI G5 S1 F0 yes 1 1 1 Dodecatheon meadia var. Eastern Shooting- mead Star vas SOI G5T5 S2 FP 7 3 9 4 Enemion biternatum Eastern Isopyrum vas SOI G5 S2 F0 yes 1 12 10 Euonymus atropurpureus Wahoo vas SOI G5 S2 F? 3 1 0 Godfrey's Eupatorium godfreyanum Thoroughwor vas SOI G4 S2 F0 yes 1 7 7 Eupatorium incarnatum Pink Thoroughwort vas SOI G5 S2 F? 3 3 3 Euphorbia mercurialina Cumberland Spurge vas SOI G4 S2 F0 yes 1 10 10 Littleleaf Helenium brevifolium Sneezeweed vas SOI G4 S2 FP 7 0 3 3 3

DRAFT

Helianthus laevigatus Smooth Sunflower vas SOI G4 S2 F2 yes 7 16 37 50 49 Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot vas SOI G5 S2 FP 7 8 11 11 Hexastylis lewisii Lewis's Heartleaf vas SOI G4 S3 F0 yes 1 40 40 Liatris squarrulosa Earle's Blazing-star vas SOI G4G5 S2 F? 3 18 18 Lilium canadense ssp. canade Yellow Canada Lily vas SOI G5T4? S1 F? yes 2 1 1 Lilium canadense ssp. editor Red Canada Lily vas SOI G5T4 S1 F? 8 1 1 Linum sulcatum var. sulcatum Glade Flax vas SOI G5T5 SH F0 yes 1 1 1 Lithospermum canescens Hoary Puccoon vas SOI G5 S2 F? 9 16 16 Lithospermum tuberosum Tuberous Gromwell vas SOI G4 S0 F0 yes 1 1 0 Matelea decipiens Glade Milkvine vas SOI G5 S2 FP 7 2 9 7 Single-flowered Minuartia uniflora Sandw vas SOI G4 S1 F0 yes 1 8 3 Oligoneuron album Prairie Goldenrod vas SOI G5 S1 F? 8 1 1 Oligoneuron rigidum var. ri Prairie Goldenrod vas SOI G5 S1 F0 yes 1 1 0 Oligoneuron rigidum var. Southeastern Bold gla Gol vas SOI G5T4 S2 F? 8 8 8 Osmorihiza claytonii Hairy Sweet-cicely vas SOI G5 S5 F1? yes 2 1 0 Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng vas SOI G3G4 S4 F1? 9 3 0 Panicum flexile Wiry Panic Grass vas SOI G5 S1 F0 yes 1 4 4 Pellaea wrightiana Wright's Cliff-brake vas SOI G5 S1 F0 yes 7 1 1 1 Streambank Mock- Philadelphus hirsutus orang vas SOI G5 S2 F0 yes 1 2 0 Plantago cordata Heart-leaf Plaintain vas SOI G4 S1 FP 7 Platanthera peramoena Purple Fringeless Orc vas SOI G5 S2 F0 yes 1 3 3 Porteranthus stipulatus Indian Physic vas SOI G5 S2 FP 7 5 33 26 Prunus pumila var. susquehan Susquehanna Cherry vas SOI G5T4 SH F0 yes 1 1 1 Pseudognaphalium helleri Heller's Rabbit-Tobac vas SOI G3G4 S3 F1 yes 7 1 3 13 13 Quercus austrina Bluff Oak vas SOI G4 S1 F1 7 1 2 2 Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak vas SOI G5 S2 F? 8 1 0 Dwarf Chinquapin Quercus prinoides Oak vas SOI G5 SH FP 3 Quercus sinuata Durand's White Oak vas SOI G4G5 S0 F0 yes 1 16 0 Water-plantain Ranuculus ambigens Spearw vas SOI G4 SH F0 yes 1 1 1 Rhododendron eastmanii May White vas SOI G2 S0 F0 yes 1 1 0

DRAFT

Ruellia humilis Low Wild-petunia vas SOI G5 S1 F0 yes 1 7 7 Schoenoplectus etuberculatus Canby's Bulrush vas SOI G3G4 S3 F? yes 7 1 1 1 Scirpus pendulus Rufous Bulrush vas SOI G5 S1 F? 1 5 5 Scutellaria australis Southern Skullcap vas SOI G4?Q S1 F? 3 1 1 Shale-barren Scutellaria leonardii Skullcap vas SOI G4 S1 F0 yes 1 10 10 Scutellaria nervosa Veined Skullcap vas SOI G5 S1 F? 3 4 4 Silphium terebinthinaceum Prairie Dock vas SOI G4G5 S2 FP 8 1 24 24 Smilax hugeri Huger's Carrion-flowe vas SOI G4 S2 FO yes 1 1 1 Western Rough Solidago radula Goldenr vas SOI G5?Q S1 FP 7 2 2 2 Solidogo auriculata Eared Goldenrod vas SOI G4 S0 F0 yes 1 2 0 Stachys sp. 1 Yadkin Hedge Nettle vas SOI GNR S1 FP 7 1 3 1 Stewartia ovata Mountain Camellia vas SOI G4 S2 F1 7 1 2 3 3 Symphyotrichum laeve var. co Narrow-leaf Aster vas SOI G5T4 S2 FP 7 3 7 7 Symphyotrichum parviceps Glade Aster vas SOI G4? S1 F0 yes 1 4 4 Thermopsis mollis sensu Appalachian Golden- stri ba vas SOI G3G4 S2 FP yes 1 3 3 Tradescantia virginiana Virginia Spiderwort vas SOI G5 S1 F1 7 1 1 4 2 Aethusa-like Trepocarpus aethusae Trepocar vas SOI G4G5 S0 F0 yes 1 1 0 Trichostema brachiatum Glade Bluecurls vas SOI G5 S1 F? 8 3 3 Verbena riparia Riverbank vervain vas SOI GUGHQ SH F0 ? 3 Viola walteri Prostrate Blue Violet vas SOI G4G5 S1 F1 7 1 1 1

1/ EOs for more common birds are from R8 Bird points on the Uwharrie, i.e., value is the greatest number of yearly observations made for the species from 1997 to 2005

Potential Status: T&E = Federal Threatened or Endangered Species SOC = Species of Concern; G1-G3 SOI = Species of Interest; S1-S3

Screening Criteria: 1 = Outside the range of the UWNF 2 = Secure to mostly secure(S4,S5) in NC and Globally G3,G4,G5 3 = Data on species insufficient, i.e. habitat preference description too broad, species extirpated and historical distribution unknown or vague, and no record in the 4 county area 4 = Management action not necessary to prevent federally listing 5 = Species extipated in area and the UWNF does not have sufficient intact habitat to make conservation contribution

DRAFT

6 = Occurs in 4-county area but will not be affected by management practices 7 = Considered further because of management concerns or opportunities on the UWNF 8 = Considered further because status throughout range and habitat restoration opportunities on the UWNF 9 = Fairly widespread, e.g. occurring in > 1 section: Piedmont, Mountains, Coastal Plain - and/or UWNF not in significant portion of range to contribute significantly to conservation